S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. This order will dispose of a Review Petition seeking recall of the order dated 19.03.2010, whereby its application for amendment of the suit, being I.A. No. 3509/2010 was disposed of.

2. The plaintiff is a Society registered under Section 33(3) of the Copyrights Act, whose members are eminent authors, composers and publishers of Indian literary and musical works, and who have assigned their public performing rights/ broadcasting rights to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had claimed that the defendant company is engaged in broadcast and communicating to the public, literary, musical and other works had violated its copyrights by unauthorized broadcast of its (the plaintiff's) repertoire without authorization or license and despite knowledge that such rights were that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had entered into contract in regard to broadcast of music in respect of 7 cities under an earlier FM Radio Policy Ph-I, of the Central Government. The plaintiff, at the time of filing the suit, had alleged that the defendant infringed its copyright by broadcasting musical works from three FM Radio Stations -Bangalore, Jaipur and Hyderabad.

3. In the application, IA 3509/2010, the plaintiff had alleged that during pendency of the suit, the defendant had obtained licenses to open and establish Radio stations in 22 cities, i.e. Patna, Jalandhar, Panaji, Bhopal, Vadodara, Rajkot, Kanpur, Nasik, Varanasi, Aurangabad, Lucknow etc. This Court, after considering the submissions, had rejected the application for amendment in the following terms:

"XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX

I.A. No. 3509/2010

The Court has considered the averments in the application. The plaintiff proposes to amend the suit, submitting that as a consequence of change in the policy of Central Government, the defendant was permitted to set-up and operate more FM radio stations. Originally when the suit was filed, the Defendant was operating three radio stations. The plaintiff's claim is for permanent injunction. The suit seeks permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from playing or broadcasting any programmes which have contents in respect of which the plaintiff has exclusive sound-recording rights.

The Court is of the opinion that the application at best sets-out a subsequent cause of action, which, if permitted to be incorporated, would only enlarge the scope of the suit and further delay it. The parties have admitted/denied the documents. In the circumstances, the plaintiff's request is declined. It is further without prejudice to its rights to claim such relief as is permissible, in respect of the averments, spelling-out subsequent cause of action, if any.

I.A. No. 3509/2010 is disposed of in these terms.

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"

4. It is argued that the order ought to be reviewed as it would cause extreme hardship in as much as multifarious litigation would have to be resorted to for adjudication of the very same disputes merely on account of the defendant having established radio stations that were not existent at the time when the suit was filed. It was submitted that this is an important consideration which the Court overlooked, as rejection of the request for amendment could potentially lead to conflicting judgments which had to be avoided by adopting a liberal approach and permitting the amendments sought. In support of this submission, learned counsel had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Reva Jeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswami & Sons, 2009 (10) SCC 84; Sampat Kumar v. Ayakannu & Anr., 2002 (7) SCC 559; B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pillai, 2001 (7) SCC 712.

2. It is next submitted that even if the Court commits an error or mistake of law, it can review the previous order as a corrective measure, and to secure ends of justice. Learned counsel argued that non-consideration of the binding judgments constitutes an error of law that can be cured, and review jurisdiction. In support of these sub