The amended Order XIII-A of The Civil Procedure Code applies to suits for Summary Judgment transferred to the Commercial Division, and the plaintiff must provide clear and unequivocal evidence to support their claims.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XIII-A of The Civil Procedure Code, as amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for Summary Judgment.

2. In the present application, the plaintiffs have claimed a decree for Summary Judgment for a sum of Rs. 90,01,828/- for the period 2011-2012 on account of outstanding royalty and for a sum of Rs. 1,50,02,790/- for the period 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 together with interest at 18% per annum on the amounts taken cumulatively. The plaintiffs rely on the amended Order XIII-A as introduced by the Commercial Courts Act for seeking the relief as stated.

3. The plaintiffs are the daughter and the son-in-law, respectively, of one Dr. Durlav Chandra Dutta, who was the Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nil Ratan Sarkar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and wrote several textbooks on Obstetrics and Gynaecology during his lifetime. The plaintiffs' claim relates to royalties from the sale and publication of the textbooks after the death of Dr. Durlav Chandra Dutta. The plaintiffs claim that the late Dr. Durlav Chandra Dutta granted a nonexclusive licence, which was terminable in nature, to the father of the defendant no. 2 to publish the textbooks for certain territories. The defendants refute the claims and the basis thereof.

4. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, assisted by Mr. Soumya Roychowdhury and Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs urge that Order XIII-A, as amended would apply to a suit transferred to the Commercial Division under Section 15 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for seeking Summary Judgment. On the factual score, counsel primarily relies on two Statements of Royalties payable to the first plaintiff from 1/04/10 to 31/03/2011, which shows an amount of Rs. 95,25,803/- and from 1/04/11 to 31/03/2012 showing an amount of Rs. 100,73,694.25/-. The second document which has been shown to the court is a letter dated 6th November, 2013 issued by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiffs which, according to counsel, contains an unequivocal admission that the defendants would pay 50% of 2 crores within August 2013 and the remaining 1 crore within March 2014. It is submitted that the statement of royalty for the period 2011-2012 which was due and payable has also been clearly admitted by the defendant no. 2 in the trial of a suit filed by the defendants in the City Civil Court against plaintiffs challenging the termination of the agreement dated 7th November, 1981.

5. Mr. Reetobroto Mitra with Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee and Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, categorically dispute any admission made on the part of the defendants and submit that the defendants have in any event made substantial payments as evident from the letter dated 6th November, 2013. Counsel urges that an application for Summary Judgment should be rejected where the plaintiffs by their very averments have raised triable issues which are incapable of being summarily decided. Counsel relies on pleadings to show that the plaintiffs have disputed the contents of the written statements and further have also disputed the nature of the licence given to the father of the second defendant for publishing of the Textbooks. With regard to the claimed quantum, counsel submits that the statements of royalty payable would show that the defendants had already paid an amount of Rs. 94,93,563/- to the plaintiffs till November, 2013 and the same would be evident from the averments in the application itself. Further, the relevance of the alleged admission in the letter dated 6th November, 2013 would have to be seen in the particular context in which the letter was issued. Counsel submits that the amount of Rs. 1,50,02,790/- has been claimed on the basis of conjectures without any particulars as to how the plaintiffs arrived at the said sum. Counsel urges that the application of the newly amended Order XIII-A, cannot give a