Pending suit for a declaration that they are the joint owners of the entire copyright in the work titled "JAYA JAYA DEVI", a dance ballet and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner staging the said dance ballet in a manner infringing their copyrights, the plaintiffs have come up with the application O.A.No.1370 of 2007, seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner staging the dance ballet and infringing their copyrights. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an application in A.NO.8120 of 2007 under Order II Rule 2 CPC, seeking leave to omit to sue for damages on the same cause of action.

2. On 20.12.2007, an exparte interim order of injunction was granted in O.A.No.1370 of 2007 by this Court. In A.No.8120 of 2007, this Court ordered notice. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance and have come up with the application A.No.35 of 2008 for vacating the interim order of injunction.

3. I have heard Mr.Arvind P.Datar learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants.

4. The case of the plaintiffsis that the first plaintiff as a renowned Carnatic musician, the second plaintiff as a popular writer and the third plaintiff as a renowned Bharathanatyam dancer and choreographer, joined together and produced a dance ballet titled JAYA JAYA DEVI" in the year 1994 and performed the ballet in several centres in the United States of America. According to the plaintiffs, they own the entire copyrights over the said ballet and that they also staged the ballet in several places in India. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant sought assignment of the copyright, but no agreement could be reached.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant, through its then Vice President, staked a claim over the copyrights of the dance ballet, as early as in 1994 through a letter dated 212. 1994, but the claim was retracted by the then President of the first defendant, by a letter dated 04.01.1995. Again on 012. 1998, a claim was made on the basis of an agreement, but no such agreement was produced, when demanded by the plaintiffs through counsel.

6. In the website of the first defendant, which was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs, in the first week of December 2007, the first defendants plans to stage a revival of the dance ballet were publicized. Therefore, the plaintiffs have come up with the present suit.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the vacate injunction application, the defendants claim that the first defendant is a non profit organisation, founded in the State of Ohio, USA, in the year 1991. One Mr. R. Balasubramanian was its President at that time. His wife Mrs. Gomathi was its Treasurer and Mrs. Uma Ganesan, (the present President and the deponent to the affidavit in support of the vacate injunction application) was its Vice President at that time. An affiliated organization with the same name as the first defendant, was started in Chennai in 1999 with Mrs. Uma Ganesan as its Managing Trustee.

.8. It is the case of the defendants that the entire idea for the dance ballet was conceived by Mrs. Uma Ganesan and that she approached the first plaintiff for composing music for the ballet. According to the defendants, an arrangement was reached between the first plaintiff and Mrs. Uma Ganesan, in pursuance of which, the ballet was produced and premiered in Cleveland in U.S.A., on 3rd April 1994.

9. It is the further case of the defendants that the first plaintiff was engaged under a contract of service by the first defendant for the production and that therefore by virtue of Section 17(c) of the Copyrights Act, 1957, the copyrights vested in the first defendant. According to the defendants, payments were made for the services rendered by the first and third plaintiffs and that the first defendant had no relationship with the s