Manmohan Singh, J.-The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against infringement of copyright, breach of contract, defamation, damages and delivery up, etc. against the defendants for restraining him or any of its agents, etc. to interfere with the plaintiffs copyright in the book titled as "Synopsis of Dermatology and Sexually Transmitted Diseases" (hereinafter referred to as "Dermatology").

2. In the plaint, the plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 is Professor of Dermatology and Venereology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-110029. She is the author of the book Dermatology, which has been published by the Plaintiff in 2005 and reprinted in 2006 and in 2007. A copy of the third reprint is filed in the present proceedings. For the purpose of publishing this book, the plaintiff entered into a copyright assignment and publishing agreement with Defendant No.1 in 2003, which was subsequently modified and superseded by another agreement dated 1st September, 2005.

3. In view of the agreement entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.

1, it is alleged that plaintiff has complete assignment of copyright in respect of rights related to publishing book format.

4. In the present application IA No. 4401/2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the plaintiff, amendment is sought to the effect that defendant No.1 is (except as mentioned hereinbelow) the author of the book titled "Dermatology". It is averred by the plaintiff that the defendant intended to bring out an infringing second edition of the book titled Dermatology in which the plaintiff owns copyright incorporating certain pictures and drawings made by the plaintiff.

5. The suit was filed on 29th October, 2007 and summons were issued on 30th October, 2007. The defendant filed the written statement along with a copy of the book which was allegedly put in the market before filing of the written statement. The matter was thereafter fixed for 14th November, 2007.

6. It is submitted by the plaintiff that while the book Dermatology, which was first published by the Plaintiff, was under preparation in late 2004, the plaintiff had supplied to the defendant No.1 a number of line drawings which were utilized in the book by defendant No. 1. It is further submitted that the said drawings were prepared on the plaintiffs computer by his employee Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Maurya, and the plaintiff is, therefore, the first owner of copyright under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff did not mention this fact in the original plaint because he thought that the same would not be reutilized in the new edition of the book and the defendant No.1 was expected to make some changes in the illustrations of the book (as in fact she subsequently did).

7. The Plaintiff examined the said book in detail only when the written statement was filed by the defendants along with the copy of the book. At this point, he noticed that the Defendant No.1 retained and reused the illustrations which had been supplied by the plaintiff and of which the plaintiff was owner of copyright under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act.

8. The plaintiff therefore pleaded that he could not have known the abovesaid fact till the time when the plaint was originally filed. The book was to be put in the market in 2008 and not available when the plaint was filed i.e. in October, 2007. The plaintiff also filed an application being IA No. 309/2008 to bring on record certain additional documents necessitated by the untrue averments of the defendants in their written statement wherein this Court vide order dated 9th January, 2008 directed that the plaintiff shall make an appropriate application for amendment of the plaint and if he takes additional pleas by amendment of the plaint he may also rely on additional documents.

9. The defendants submits that they had announced publication on the subject work on 1st October, 2007 and distributed their work on 8th October, 2007 after which the plaintiff has