V.K.Jain, J. This is an Appeal against the Order dated 8.5.2009, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed application of the Plaintiff/Respondent under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of Plaint.

2. The case set up by the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 in the original Plaint is that the Appellant/Defendant No.1, who is a Professor of Dermatology and Venereology in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, is the author of the book titled „Synopsis of Dermatology and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, which was published by it in the year 2005, followed by re-prints in the year 2006 and 2007. Before publishing the book, the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 entered into an agreement with the Appellant/Defendant No.1 whereby copyrights relating to publishing of the book were assigned to the plaintiff/respondent No.1. It is alleged that vide letter dated 28.3.2007, the Appellant/Defendant No.1 withdrew publishing right from the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, despite earlier assignment of copyright to it. The Plaintiff sought injunction against the Appellant/Defendant No.1 entering into Agreement which would take away its copyright in the book, and injunction restraining defendant No.2/respondent No.2 from publishing the said book. It also sought damages amounting to Rs.20,01,000/-, besides seeking order for accounts and delivery up for any infringing copies of the said book and all materials involved in infringing such as drawings, papers, print-outs, labels etc.

3. The Appellant/Defendant No.1 filed Written Statement contesting the Suit. It was alleged in the Written Statement that since the Appellant/Defendant No.1 was not satisfied with the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, she decided against any further publication of her works by it and withdrew the subject work from it, with effect from 1.4.2007, thereby, terminating the agreement dated 25.8.2003. Following the said withdrawal, the Appellant/Defendant No.1 assigned all copyrights in the said book to Defendant No.2, which published a second edition of the work on 8.10.2007, after announcing its publication, in advance, on 1.10.2007. According to the Appellant/Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 was left only with the limited right to sell the unsold stock as on 31.3.2007. Thus, according to her, no copyright in the book in question vests in the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1.

4. Vide application dated 8.4.2008, under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff claimed that when the book was under preparation for its first publication, it had supplied a number of line drawings, which were utilized in the book by the Appellant/Defendant No.1. Those drawings were prepared on Plaintiff?s computers, by its employee Mr.Avdesh Kumar Maurya, and the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 is the first owner of copyrights therein, under Section 17 of the Copyright Act. According to Plaintiff, it did not mention this fact in the original Plaint since it took it for granted that those drawings would not be re-utilized in the new edition of the book, and the Author in any case was expected to make some changes in the illustrations in the second edition of the book. However, when the Plaintiff inspected the book in detail, after it was filed along with the Written Statement, it found that the Appellant/Defendant No.1 had retained/re-utilized the illustrations which were supplied by the Respondent/Plaintiff, and in respect of which copyrights were vested with it. The Plaintiff, therefore, sought amendment of the Plaint. Though the proposed amendments were not specified in the application, the proposed Amended Plaint annexed to the amendment application showed that it was seeking to add paragraphs 2(A) to 2(E) and 12(A) to 12 (E) in the Plaint. In nutshell, the Plaintiff sought to allege, by way of proposed amendment, that it had got prepared and provided drawings, which were prepared on its Computer and those drawings were utilized for illustrations used