THE METRO RAILWAY Vs. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In course of the hearing of the instant revisional application, two legal points which arise for consideration; firstly, whether proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be extended in a situation where the amendment becomes necessitated by subsequent events; secondly, a fresh application on the selfsame set of facts is maintainable if an earlier application is dismissed for non-appearance of the said party but in presence of other party.

(2.) In a suit for declaration of ownership of copyright in respect of sound recording and infringement, an application for amendment was taken out by the plaintiff seeking to delete the averments made in several paragraphs of the plaint and also to mould the reliefs claimed therein. Admittedly, the said application was taken out after the suit was posted for peremptory hearing.

(3.) By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff/opposite party intended to bring certain facts which emanates after the introduction of an amendment having brought in the year 2012 whereby and where under the plaintiff was empowered to act in a capacity of a performing rights body and its existence as a body association in the nature of assignors or licensors continued undisturbed.