Copyright subsists distinctly in relation to each of the classes of work.

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. The first Commercial Appeal on our board is by the original defendants 1 to 6 in the Suit for infringement of copyright being Commercial Suit (L) No. 459 of 2017.

2. That Suit was filed by the respondent in this Appeal.

3. Since detailed arguments have been canvassed, we proceed to dispose of this Appeal finally by this order.

4. At the outset, we must clarify that this Appeal challenges an ad-interim order of the learned Single Judge in the above Commercial Suit (L) No. 459 of 2017.

5. An application for interim injunction vide Notice of Motion (L) No. 515 of 2017 was made in that Suit by the respondent/plaintiff. In that application, the urgent ad-interim injunction was sought by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/original defendants. On 22nd August, 2017, that application for urgent ad-interim injunction has been considered and granted. It is such an ad-interim order which is under challenge in this Appeal.

6. Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of this Appeal submits that though this Appeal is directed against an ad-interim order, the appellants/original defendants would have no grievance if this Court passes an order disposing of the Notice of Motion for interim injunction finally by this order. Equally, Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the order in this Appeal can be taken as a final order in interim injunction application/Notice of Motion (L) No. 515 of 2017.

7. At the further outset, Mr. Kadam states that since the matter is argued on the basis of the documents and which are annexed to the plaint, and their contents falling for interpretation of this Court, the appellants do not desire to file any affidavit-in-reply. They would proceed on the basis of denial. The appellants would reserve their rights and contentions as far as merits are concerned at the final hearing of the Suit. This Court, therefore, should not express any final opinion is the request made by Mr. Kadam.

8. This course is also not objected by Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. Hence, we proceed to admit the Appeal. Respondent waives service. Filing of paper book is dispensed with. By consent of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, we dispose of this Appeal by the present order.

10. At the outset, we must record our strong disapproval with regard to the manner with which the Registry of this Court is proceeding to accept Commercial Suits and applications for interim relief’s therein. The Registry should be aware of the fact that merely because a Commercial Suit is lodged and the parties desire to obtain urgent ad-interim relief-s does not mean dispensing with the procedural rules, and particularly the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. The Registry is proceeding to assign a lodging or a temporary number to the Suit and to the application for interim injunction. Repeatedly it has been observed that this results in utter confusion and chaos. Sometimes, the same lodging number is assigned to the interim application in another Suit. On most occasions, when there are cross suits, without even bothering to refer to its lodging register or the computer software, same numbers are assigned by the Registry officials. They do not even bother then to post the matters for directions regarding removal of office objections. They allow such state of affairs to continue and never repair them and applications or Suits are disposed of on lodging number. The Registry officials do not make any efforts to then number the Suit or application. The defects and deficiencies remain as they are and objections raised in the process are never complied with. There are no consequences ever visited on those Advocates and parties who have not bothered to comply with the procedural rules. This is not a proper approach and should be discouraged. The Registry officials should remind themselves that their duty d