|
IA No.2672/2020 (u/S 149 CPC)
|
|
..... Plaintiff
|
|
Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Somnath De and
Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Advs.
|
$~24
*
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+CS(COMM)
90/2020
SHILPI
KWATRA
Through:
Versus
ANUBHAV SINHA & ORS. .....
Defendants
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Harshvardhan Jha and
Mr. Kivramaditya Chavan, Advs. for D-1
to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER 25.02.2020
1.
Accepting the undertaking of the
counsel for the plaintiff that the court fees will be deposited within three
days, the time for depositing the court fees is extended by three days.
2.
At this stage, the counsel for
the plaintiff states that court fees has already been received and will be
deposited in the course of the day.
3.
The Registry to report, whether the court fees is
sufficient.
4.
The application is disposed of.
5.
If the court fees is not
deposited or the court fees deposited is not sufficient, the Registry to re-list
the suit for appropriate action.
IA No.2671/2020 (for exemption)
6.
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
7.
The application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 90/2020 Page 1 of
4
IA No.2670/2020 (u/O XI R-1(4)
CPC)
8.
For the reasons stated, the
plaintiff is permitted to file the additional documents latest with the
replication, if any.
9.
The application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 90/2020 & IA
No.2669/2020 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)
10.
The plaintiff, claiming to be
granddaughter and heir of the Punjabi and Hindi poet Dr. Amrita Pritam, has
instituted this suit against defendants No.1 to 3 namely (i) Anubhav Sinha,
(ii) Bhushan Kumar and (iii) Super Cassette Industries Pvt. Ltd., for (a)
permanent injunction to restrain the
defendants from releasing the film “THAPPAD”, scheduled
for release on Friday i.e. 28th February, 2020, on the ground that the same contains the poem „MERA
PATA‟ of late Dr. Amrita Pritam and copyright wherein vests with the plaintiff;
(b) permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from promoting,
advertising, pursuing or releasing the film “THAPPAD” by projecting the same to
be in any manner associated with or related to life of late Dr. Amrita Pritam;
and, (c) ancillary reliefs.
11.
The plaint is highly disjointed
and does not contain all the requisite details. Though the plaintiff at page
151 of Part-III(A) file has filed legal notice dated 16th September, 2019 got issued by
Aman Kwatra, brother of the plaintiff in his capacity as Trustee-cum-Chairman
of Dr. Amrita Pritam Foundation Trust, on the same subject, claiming to be
holding exclusive copyright in the works of Dr. Amrita Pritam and claiming that
the said copyright is impartible, in the plaint there is no explanation how in
the face of the claim of the said Aman Kwatra in the legal notice aforesaid in
his capacity as Trustee claiming the copyright to be solely held by him / by
the
CS(COMM) 90/2020 Page
2 of 4
Foundation and being impartible, the plaintiff
claims any right. Even though the said Aman Kwatra may be the brother of the
plaintiff, the fact remains that the said Aman Kwatra in his capacity as
Trustee of Dr. Amrita Pritam Foundation Trust claimed that the rights vested
solely and impartibly in him / Foundation.
12.
Moreover, the plaintiff has also
filed the reply dated 19th October, 2019 received to the legal notice wherein the defendants have
denied having claimed/projected the forthcoming film to be based on the life or
works of Dr. Amrita Pritam. There is no explanation, how in the face of such
reply, the plaintiff has any cause of action. Statements of others, who have
not been sued, to the said effect, though can constitute cause of action
against them, but not against the defendants.
13.
An associate of the counsel for
the plaintiff, while mentioning the matter yesterday for urgent listing, to
explain the urgency, stated that the divorce proceedings of Dr. Amrita Pritam
were on the ground of her husband having slapped her and the plot of the
subject film is therefore based on the life of Dr. Amrita Pritam. However there
is no whisper even in the plaint, in this respect. It is obvious that a false
impression was given at the time of mentioning the matter for urgent listing.
14.
Be that as it may, the senior
counsel for the defendants appears as per intimation directed to be given at
the time of mentioning and on enquiry, under instructions, confirms that what
is stated in the reply sent to the notice preceding the suit is correct and
that neither have the defendants claimed anywhere that the film is based on the
life or works of Dr. Amrita Pritam nor
does the
film contain the poem „MERA PATA‟ of Dr. Amrita Pritam.
CS(COMM) 90/2020 Page
3 of 4
15.
The senior counsel for the
defendants also informs that though at one point of time there was a proposal
for including the said poem in the film and in another scene of the film, a
reference to Dr. Amrita Pritam was made and permission therefor sought to be
obtained but on unreasonable demands being made, the same were dropped and the
film as due to be released would not have any reference to Dr. Amrita Pritam
and will not contain the poem
„MERA
PATA‟ or any part thereof.
16.
In fact seeing the reply to the
legal notice, I had at the outset enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff,
whether the plaintiff wanted to give the undertaking for depositing the court
fees, being of the view that in light of the categorical stand of the
defendants, there was no cause of action for the suit. However the counsel for
plaintiff insists.
17.
The counsel for the plaintiff
also states that in view of the statement aforesaid of the senior counsel for
the defendants, the suit may be disposed of.
18.
The senior counsel for the
defendants points out that the plaint is not in accordance with Order VI Rule
14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and there is no reason why the plaintiff
has not herself verified the plaint or filed affidavit or statement of truth
with respect thereto and the verification, statement of truth and affidavit of
the wife of the Advocate is not sufficient compliance.
19.
Though all the aforesaid conduct
of the plaintiff entitles the defendants to costs but as a mark of deference to
the late poet, I am refraining from doing so and dispose of the suit, binding
the defendants to their statement aforesaid and leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2020/„bs‟..
CS(COMM) 90/2020 Page
4 of 4
