S.L. BHAYANA, J.

By this application, I propose to dispose of I.A.No.4920/09, filed by applicant/ plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 7 and 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. This case is related to infringement of copyright, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts etc. and praying for perpetual injunction, damages and other relief against the Defendants.

3. By virtue of this application, plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be directed to deposit all monies and revenues that has been generated and collected by sale of Data Doctor for FAT and NTFS as also the varied variants, altered, modified, reproduced version under different names supported by different domain name registrars, web hosting service providers and payment gateways, be immediately seized and brought under the custody and control of this court.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel of the plaintiff that even after ad-interim ex-parte order dated 30/4/2008 defendants have continued to see the copied version of their software and has also placed on record list of certain websites of Prodata Doctor, list of new products and newly found websites belonging to the Defendants selling infringed software.

5. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that software downloaded by the plaintiff on 2nd April 2009 clearly shows that except for the names of Company/identity everything is identical and product is also same and they are still in its possession of the infringed source code.

6. During the course of arguments learned counsel of the plaintiff also informed the court that pertaining to this fraud and infringement an FIR No. RC 0006/07 with CBI registered under section 65 of Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 63 read with Section 14(6)(ii) of Copyright and section 381 of Indian Penal Code has also been filed against the defendants. To support their case CBI has placed cyber forensic analysis report of the hard disk of the computer of Defendant No.3 dated 12/5/08 from CFSL, there by showing that Defendant No.3 was found using and infringing the software of the plaintiff. To be reproduced below as relevant: “GOVT. EXAMINER OF QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS GOVT. OF INDIA, HYDERABAD- 500013 The digital evidence storage media has been carefully and thoroughly analyzed

1. XXXXXXX

2. The words ‘unistal’, ‘quick recovery’ was found in the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q2, Q9 and Q20 (imaged as CCH-62-93-2008-Q2, CCH-62-93-2008-Q9 and CCH-62-93-2008-Q20 respectively).

3. Folder match comparison of the folder ‘9xNTFS’ found in the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q2 (imaged as CCH-62-93-2008-Q2) with the folder ‘9xNTFS’ found in the digital evidence storage media marked STD indicates that there are 89 identical files. The hard copy of the results is given at Annexure-A (Page Nos.7-11).

4. Forensic analysis by using ‘Resource Hacker’ indicates that there is several screen designs found in the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q2, Q9 and Q20 (imaged as CCH-62-93-2008-Q2, CCH-62-93-2008-Q9 and CCH-62-93-2008-Q20 respectively), which are similar to the designs found in the digital evidence storage media, marked STD. The hard copy of the results is given at Annexure-A (Page Nos.12-56).

5. Content match comparison of the file ‘quickmode.cpp’ present in the folder ‘9xNTFS’ found in the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q2 (imaged as CCH-62-93-2008-Q2) with the corresponding file present in the folder ‘9xNTFS’ found in digital evidence storage media marked STD indicates that there are 9382 lines of matches and 6 mismatches. The hard copy of the results is given at Annexure-A (Page Nos. 57-175).”

7. Learned counsel of the plaintiff further contended that CFSL report dated 12/5/08 clearly shows that Defendants are violating the order dated 30/4/08 of this court and there are sufficient reasons for directing that all the monies coming from the