The court emphasized that the necessity of additional issues for just adjudication should not be dismissed solely based on delay.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 5070/2023 (O-XIVR-5 of CPC)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) to frame an additional issue.

2. Notice in the application was issued on 15th March, 2023 and reply has been filed on behalf of the defendant.

3. Following issues were framed on 28th November, 2019:

“i) Whether the defendant is infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in the plaintiffs songs, including the underlying literary and musical works contained therein? (OPP)

ii) Whether the defendant is stopped from challenging the rights of the plaintiff in the sound recordings and underlying literary and musical works of the cinematograph films forming the subject matter of the present suit? (OPP)

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages, if so, to what amount? (OPP)

iv) Cost.

v) Relief”

4. On 16th December, 2022, a Local Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence in the matter. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff, however, the evidence is yet to be recorded.

5. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that while preparing for the evidence in the matter, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that inadvertently, the issue regarding rendition of accounts by the defendant has not been framed. Accordingly, the present application has been filed to frame an issue with regard to the aforesaid.

6. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 15 of the plaint where averments with regard to rendition of accounts by the defendant have been made. The contents of the said paragraph have been denied by the defendant in his written statement.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that no such issue with regard to rendition of accounts was framed by the Court on 28th November, 2019, when the issues were being framed in the suit. This was because the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was governed by a License Agreement in terms of which annual license fee was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no question of the defendant providing a statement of accounts and hence, such an issue was not framed. It is further submitted that the present application has been filed in a highly belated matter i.e., more than three years after the framing of issues.

8. In rejoinder, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the License Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated on 30th December, 2016 and thereafter, there is no subsisting contract between the parties and the payments are being made by the defendant to the plaintiff only in terms of interim orders passed by this Court.

9. I have heard the counsels for the parties.

10. In terms of Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC, the Court is required to frame issues upon all material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC empowers the Court to amend issues or frame additional issues before passing a decree if such issues may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.

11. At this stage, a reference may be made to paragraph 15 of the plaint, which is set out below:

“15. That the Plaintiff submits that the likely losses, damages and harm to the Plaintiff's business due to the unlawful acts of the Defendants are unquantifiable and irreparable and the same can only be quantified by rendition of accounts by the Defendant. However, at this stage, the Plaintiff has provisionally valued the present suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and seeks liberty of the Hon'ble Court to enhance the same after the rendition of accounts by the Defendant.”

12. In its written statement, the defendant has simply denied the co