Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:—

I.A. No.16810/2012 (of defendants u/O 8 R-1 CPC) & I.A. No.5281/2012 (of plaintiff u/O 8 R-10 CPC)

1. The counsel for the defendants seeks adjournment. On being asked the reason, he states that his vehicle was stolen on 24th January, 2013 and the file of this suit went along with the vehicle and he will have to re-construct the file.

2. The counsel has been asked as to why on 24th January, 2013 he was carrying the file of this suit which was not listed on that date and was vide order dated 26th November, 2012 posted for today.

3. The counsel for the defendants states that some of his files remain in his car.

4. The aforesaid explanation is not found satisfactory. The request for adjournment is rejected.

5. The counsel for the defendants states that he does not want to argue the applications today.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff has been heard.

7. Vide order dated 27th March, 2012, the written statement filed by the defendants was ordered to be taken off from the records for the reason of having been filed after a gap of 390 days and 400 days respectively and without any application for condonation of delay.

8. The defendants thereafter filed I.A. No.16810/2012 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. However, the defendants having not pressed their application today, the same is dismissed.

9. The application of the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule-10 of CPC has been considered. The suit is for injunction, restraining the defendants from organizing or providing their premises for musical shows/events where the plaintiff’s repertoire is performed or communicated to the public, without obtaining a license from the plaintiff and infringing the plaintiff’s copyright and also for rendition of accounts and damages. It has been inquired from the counsel for the plaintiff as to how a decree for rendition of accounts and damages can be passed under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC. The counsel for the plaintiff states that if the suit, in exercise of powers under Order 8 Rule 10 is decreed for relief of injunction, the plaintiff would not press for the relief of accounts and damages.

10. It thus falls for consideration whether the relief of injunction can be granted in exercise of powers under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC or the grant of relief of injunction also requires the plaintiff to lead any evidence.

11. The plaintiff in the plaint has pleaded, that it is a company limited by guarantee and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and also registered as a Copyright Society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957; that it was established to monitor, protect and enforce the rights, interest and privileges of its members comprising of authors, composers and publishers of literary or musical works; that the members of the plaintiff have executed deeds of assignment assigning the public performing rights in respect of their literary or musical works in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of public performance/communication to the public; that the defendant no.1 as part of its centenary year celebration, on 21st November, 2009 organised a live musical concert at the defendant no.2 Sarusajai National Games Stadium located at Guwahati, without permission of the plaintiff and without paying the requisite licence fee of the plaintiff; that in the said live musical concert, songs in which the plaintiff has rights as aforesaid were performed by the troupe invited by the defendant no.1; that the defendants no. 1 and 2 having allowed/permitted their place to be used for communication of the aforesaid literary/musical works to the public have infringed the rights of the plaintiff and are liable under Section 51(a)(i) and 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff thus seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from performing or communicating the plaintiff’s repertoire to the public or from organising or providing their premises for musical shows/events where the plaintiff’s repertoire is perform