JUDGMENT :

The appeal arises out of an order passed on an application for rejection of the plaint, though the judgment impugned reveals an attempt at adjudication of the claim on merits.

2. There is a distinction between the rejection of a plaint and the dismissal of a claim. Indeed, the rejection of a plaint does not follow a conclusive adjudication of rights culminating in a decree, but by reason of the legal fiction in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the rejection of a plaint is deemed to be a decree. Further Order VII Rule 13 of the Code mandates that the rejection of the plaint shall not preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. Thus, the rejection of a plaint cannot result in a claim being stultified; it permits the plaintiff to lodge a fresh claim.

3. The plaint in the present case seeks the following reliefs:

“a. Granting a permanent injunction restraining both the Defendants joint and severally, their co-proprietors herein, partners, staff, contractors, men, servants, agents, associates or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's copyright in its customised Tally Software and from using the customised version of the Plaintiff Tally software or any modification thereof, without the permission of the Plaintiff and thus render justice.

b. Mandatory injunction directing both the defendants jointly or severally from breaking locks, tampering or modifying the customized Tally software without the permission of the Plaintiff.

c. Directing the Defendants to jointly and severally pay compensative and/or punitive damages of Rs.15,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

d. Directing the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff the costs of the suit and

e. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

4. The case as made out in the plaint is that the plaintiff obtains a generic computer programme from a third party, customises it for use by its clients and sells the same through intermediaries as the first defendant in the suit. The further case in the plaint is that in the usual course of business the plaintiff had customised the computer programme and sold it to the second defendant Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar through the first defendant. Despite the plaint having made out such case and the plaintiff complaining of the balance consideration in respect of the computer programme not being paid by the first defendant, the plaint also asserts that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the computer programme and the principal relief claimed is for an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's copyright.

5. In dealing with the second defendant's application for rejection of the plaint, the trial court referred to the correspondence exchanged between the parties, interpreted documents and made a veritable assessment of the claim, though such an exercise was not called for on an application for rejection of the plaint. Though much of the law as it had stood for a long time has been turned on its head by recent legislation, some of the cardinal principles still hold good. A plaint may be rejected only on the basis of the statements contained in the plaint. As a consequence, the allied principle is that the allegations contained in the plaint have to be treated as true and correct for the purpose of assessing an application for rejection of the plaint. Of course, if some of the statements appear to be absurd on the face of it, to such extent the strict rule may not apply.

6. For instance, if a question of limitation is involved and some act is pleaded in the plaint which would entitle the plaintiff to obtain a period of exemption, the fact that what is pleaded in such regard is false may be decided at the trial, but the plaint cannot be rejected in such a scenario. On the other hand, since a plaintiff is obliged to i