Interrogatories should be allowed to ascertain the nature of the opponent's case and material facts constituting it, or to support the interrogating party's own case.

Jayant Nath, J.

OA 198/2014 in CS(OS) 1721/2013

1. The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the impugned order of the Joint Registrar dated 29.08.2014 passed in IA No. 19344/2013. The said application being IA No. 19344/2013 was filed under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking leave to deliver interrogatories on the appellant/plaintiff. Before going to the impugned order, it would be appropriate to first have a look at the pleadings.

2. The present suit is filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from authoring, editing, publishing, circulating any letter, pamphlet, etc. details of which are elaborated in the list of documents and also seeking a decree of Rs.1 crore jointly and severally against the defendants. The reliefs are claimed on account of alleged defamatory communications, circulars, etc. circulated by the defendants.

3. As per the plaint, the plaintiff claims to be a leader in the field of mobile and digital entertainment solutions, digital advertising, gaming and applications. It launched its mobile division called Hungama Mobile in 2004. It is further averred that the plaintiff owns a bouquet of premium and popular sites in the entertainment category covering daily news, imagery, videos, etc. The plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement on 13.09.2012 read with Addendum No. 1 dated 17.10.2012. The defendants under the aforesaid agreement were authorised to check any conventional stand-alone retail shops (also referred to as vendors) in Delhi and six other states to find out whether the said vendors were distributing the content (limited only to full length audio songs, MP3 ringtones, polytones, wallpapers, animations and themes) of concerned content partners of the plaintiff as detailed in a list sent by the plaintiff containing the names of the content partners to the defendants. The defendants were also authorised to initiate legal action against the said vendors, if necessary, for infringement of copyright after obtaining the written approval of the plaintiff. The defendant could also offer to the vendors to obtain a license from the plaintiff and collect the license fee. It is the stand of the plaintiff that the performance of the defendants was abysmal and the repeated request to improve the performance led to no results. On 01.03.2013 the plaintiff terminated the agreement dated 13.09.2012 with effect from 31.03.2013.

4. It transpires as alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants had filed unauthorised cases/FIRs without written permission of the plaintiff. As the defendants were unable to handle the said cases, in a bid to foist the blame on the plaintiff, on 09.04.2013 the defendants lodged a complaint which was registered on 18.07.2013 as an FIR under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC and Sections 63, 68 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 against the plaintiff and its director. It is stated that the FIRs centred around the representations allegedly sent by the plaintiff to the defendants containing a list of 336 content partners and an assurance that the plaintiff had a right to deal with the list of 336 content partners. It is stated that it is the case of the defendant that as the plaintiff failed to furnish the agreement with the content partners, the FIRs were lodged. The plaintiff has denied the allegations of the defendants stating that they did not send any list of 336 content partners to the defendants and that the list relied upon by the defendants is forged and fabricated.

5. It is further urged in the plaint that now the defendants have started circulating libellous letters and pamphlets among the plaintiff’s content partners and the vendors and they have also issued such press statements which have been published in various newspapers. The said libellous letters and pamphlets, it is asserted, contains false and baseless contentions against the plaintiff and its directors. It is further alleged that the defamatory statements have been mad