The main legal point established in the judgment is that copyright infringement is confined to the form, manner, arrangement, and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work. It must be shown that the defendant adopted the manner, arrangement, situation to situation, scene to scene with minor changes or super additions or embellishment here and there to establish infringement.

1. The plaintiff whose suit for damages for infringement of copy right and other incidental reliefs was dismissed by the lower court is the appellant. A Malayalam cinematograph film by name "Collector Malathy" (hereinafter referred to as the film) was released on 14-9-1967 in various centres in Kerala. The first defendant wrote the screen play and dialogue, the second defendant produced the film and it was distributed in Kerala by the third defendant. The plaintiff alleged that this film is a bare adaptation of the central theme, plot and sub-plots of a Malayalam Drama by name "Sarala Vijayam" written by him in 1948, published in 1952 and distributed through leading bookstalls. Therefore the plaintiff alleges that the defendants have infringed his copy right in the drama. All the defendants resist the suit, but the main contesting defendant is the first defendant. Among other contentions his two main contentions were that the suit is barred by limitation and that there is no infringement of the plaintiff's copyright as alleged by the plaintiff. The plot of the story was supplied by the second defendant and the first defendant wrote the screen-play and the dialogue for the film. The script so prepared is the original work of the first defendant and in writing it he has not re-produced any portion of the drama written by the plaintiff. The theme including the idea and the arrangement of the incidents and the dialogue and working out of the story in the film has nothing to do with the drama nor is it an adaptation or re-production of it Even if there was some casual connection or similarity in the plots, incident, etc., between the two works that is insufficient to constitute an infringement as alleged in the plaint. The trial court after an elaborate trial and accepting the two contentions raised by the defendants dismissed the suit. This is challenged in this appeal.

2. The first point argued by the plaintiff's counsel is that the lower court was wrong in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. To understand this question of limitation some dates have to be borne in mind. The plaintiff himself admits that the film was released on 14-9-1967. The suit was filed on 15-9-1970 in the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. In the plaint itself it was stated that the last day of limitation is 14-9-1970 and that being a holiday it is filed on the next day. On 7111970 the Munsiff's Court ordered a return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The proper court for a suit for infringement of copy right is the District Court as provided in S.62 of the Copy Right Act (Act 4 of 1957). On the back of the plaint returned there is a direction which reads as follows:

"Time to represent 15 days. Court fee paid will be given credit to".

The suit was re-presented on 16-11-1970. The plaintiff has invoked S.14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period during which the suit was pending in the Munsiff's Court. According to the lower court S.14 has no application here and even if that provision is available the plaintiff has not made out that he prosecuted the suit in a wrong court bona fide. The lower court also held that there is no justification for excluding the period from 7111970 to 16-11-1970 in reckoning the period of limitation. How far this view of the lower court is correct may be looked into.

3. Under the Limitation Act there are provisions for computation of the period of limitation and provisions providing when a suit may be instituted under certain contingencies. The latter head is covered by S.4 to 11 and S.12 to 23 come under the former head. S.4 provides that where the prescribed period of suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, such proceeding may be preferred or made on the date the court re-opens. This is not a case of exclusion of the period of limitation. On a holiday the court will not be open and it is not possible for the plaintiff to file the suit. To meet such a contingency S.4