1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned advocate for the appellants. He is an out-station advocate, who had come from Kolkata to make his submissions. His submissions were concluded on 26.04.2018, reserving his right to reply. On 05.06.2018, none appeared for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Hence, by scrolling the name of the said learned advocate in the display notice board, this Court had waited till 12.00 noon. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the appellant had concluded his submissions and also submitted a written note of his argument. Thereafter, Ms. S. Roy, learned proxy Counsel appeared on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and prayed for adjournment, which was not conceded to and refused and the argument was closed. However, for ends of justice, by order dated 05.06.2018, it was provided that if the advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 had anything to submit, it may be done in form of written argument on or before 12.06.2018, upon furnishing a copy thereof to the local advocate for the appellant, it could be submitted before the Court Master. However, till date no written argument was submitted on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. None appears for proforma respondent No. 3.

2. This is an appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in T.S. No. 5/2011. The suit was filed under the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 for declaration and injunction.

3. The appellants, namely, (1) Deepak Kumar Sanyal, (2) Sanjay Sanyal and (3) Smt. Mukti Sanyal are the plaintiffs in the suit. As per the amended plaint in the year 1970, Dilip Kumar Sanyal, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, had started a publishing house in the name and style of Assam Publishing Company with its Head office at 42, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata-9 and Branch office at College Hostel Road, Guwahati-1. In course of time, the Kolkata office was closed and the entire business of publishing and marketing was done from Guwahati. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had died on 08.03.2007, leaving behind the appellants No. 1 and 2 (sons), appellant No. 3 (wife) as well as his three daughters as his legal heirs. The appellants claim that they are now running the said business.

4. The respondents, namely, (1) Naba Kumar Bordoloi, (2) Haren Kalita and (3) Dr. Umesh Deka are the defendants in the said suit. As per the plaint, the respondent No. 1 and the father and predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 3, namely, late Hitesh Deka had jointly authored a grammar book under the name and style of “Modern English Second Paper” for the students of secondary level in Assamese medium. The said book was subsequently revised by the said authors. It was projected that being the co-authors, the respondent No. 1 and the said Hitesh Deka had owned the copyright of the said book. The respondent No. 1 and the predecessor of the respondent No. 3 had respectively assigned/ sold their copyrights over the aforesaid book absolutely to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on receipt of consideration by two separate written agreements dated 24.10.1982, containing different terms. The respondent No. 1 was paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as one time consideration for absolute sale/assignment of his share of the copy right. The predecessor of the respondent No. 3 was paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement dated 24.10.1982 for absolute sale/assignment of his share of copyright of the book with further condition that the firm of the appellants would continue paying Rs. 1,000/- to him or his ought to his legal heirs annually as long as their book in the market. On death of the predecessor of respondent No. 3, the appellants are stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per year to the respondent No. 3 and the last up to date payment was made on 08.07.2011.

5. Pursuant to the assignment of