HAFIZ Vs. ABDURAHIMAN MAKHDOOMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS C. M. A. has arisen impugning the order delivered in la. No. 414 of 1998 by the District Judge, Manjeri in O S. No. 1 of 1998. The defendants are appellants. The suit was filed by the respondents as plaintiffs against the appellants under S. 26 read with 0. 7 R. 1 of the Code of Civil procedure and Ss. 55 and 58 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) (hereinafter called 'the Act') for reliefs of injunction restraining the appellant, their men, etc. from printing, publishing, distributing and selling copies of the book titled Quran, prepared, printed and published, distributed and sold by the appellants/ defendants, etc. Along with the suit, they filed the above said LA. for a temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. The learned District Judge on hearing both sides, granted the temporary injunction in the above said I. A. till the disposal of the suit. Now as pointed out above, that order is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the first respondent is the author of ojicraioi) sxrjfs rarajos njaieonii (Quran-Translation and interpretation ). They were in two volumes marked as Exts. Al and A2. Second respondent is the printer, publisher and seller of these books. The first appellant has produced Ext. A3 book by name Quran and the first appellant has used in verbatim by quoting Exts. Al and A2. In other words, the works of the first respondent in Exts. Al and A2 have been copied by the first appellant and appellants 2 and 3 are the printers and sellers of Ext. A3. Since the literary work of the first respondent in Exts. Al and A2 has been copied by the appellants, respondents can rightly sue the appellants under the above-said provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and in the meanwhile, they are also entitled to a temporary injunction as prayed for in their interlocutory application and accordingly, the temporary injunction was granted by the trial court and that need not be now vacated by this Honourable Court.

(3.) IN addition to the above, I can also refer to hereunder the meaning of "infringing copy" as defined in S. 2 (m) of the Act which is as follows: "s. 2 (m): "infringing copy" means,- (i) in relation to a literary dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film: (ii) in relation to a cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means; (iii) in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means; (iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act. "