INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. KALA ACADEMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V.Y. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. A. Prabhudessai, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

(2.) Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Notice was issued to the respondents also indicating that the appeal may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

(3.) Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned Order and Decree on the ground that the learned Trial Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that the plaint filed by the appellant does not disclose a cause of action. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order has only considered the averments at para 34 of the plaint, without considering whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action or not. The learned Counsel has taken me through the averments in the plaint to point out that essentially the claim of the appellant is on the ground of infringement of copy right which had occurred at the Kala Academy,Goa on 27/02/2012 where it was alleged that there was such infringement which entitled the appellant to claim damages. The learned Counsel further points out that the learned Judge has only examined the truthfulness or otherwise of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint which is no ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken me through the impugned order to point out that the learned Judge, without considering the plaint as a whole, has only considered the correctness or otherwise of the averments made in para 34 of the plaint to come to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled for the relief. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has relied upon a Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 1826 in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd., and ors. vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express and Ors. and a Judgment reported in (2015) 8 SCC 331 in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy, represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and ors.