The central legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff must have a cause of action to institute a suit, and if the plaintiff has assigned all rights related to the subject matter of the suit, the plaintiff may not have a cause of action.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in A.No.3163 of 2022: This application is filed under Order XVI Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint in C.S.(Comm.) No.87 of 2022.

C.S.(Comm.) No.87 of 2022: The suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w. Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side rules read with Section 2(1)(C)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act and Section 62 of Copy Rights Act 1957 prays for a Judgment and Decree against defendants 1 and 2 (i) for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 herein, their agents, servants or anybody claiming through or under them from in any manner claiming any right more particular satellite rights of the picture title “Aaradugula Bullet” under the fabricated Agreement dated 16.08.2012; (ii) pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case an thus render justice; and (iii) for cost of the suit.)

1. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants from claiming any right in the movie ''Aaradugula Bullet'' under the alleged fabricated agreement dated 16.08.2013. The first and second defendants in the suit presented this application for rejection of the plaint.

2. The main ground on which rejection is prayed for is that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action because the plaintiff assigned the entire exclusive satellite, digital and other electronic media rights to the second respondent herein through an assignment deed dated 27.09.2021, which predates the suit.

3. Oral submissions on behalf of the applicant were made by Mr.K.Hari Shankar, learned counsel, and on behalf of the first respondent by Mr.E.Om Prakash, learned senior counsel.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is evident from the plaint and documents referred to therein that the plaintiff had assigned the copyright in relation to satellite rights, digital rights and other electronic media rights in the movie “Aaradugula Bullet” to the second respondent herein under assignment deed dated 27.09.2021. In turn, the second respondent assigned the said rights to the third respondent herein through assignment deed dated 28.09.2021. Consequently, it was contended that the plaintiff did not have the cause of action to sue as on the date of presentation of the plaint. Learned counsel referred to paragraph 12 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff referred to the notice dated 27.12.2021 from the applicants/first and second defendants to the fourth defendant. He also referred to the reply dated 29.12.2021 from the fourth defendant and, in particular, to the attachment thereto. He pointed out that the first attachment thereto is the assignment agreement dated 27.09.2021 between the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent/third defendant. Under the said agreement, the plaintiff assigned sole and exclusive copyright over the movie “Aaradugula Bullet” to and in favour of the third defendant. By referring to the schedule to the assignment agreement, he pointed out that all satellite, Internet/digital and other rights were assigned to the third defendant. Pursuant thereto, he stated that the third defendant, in turn, assigned the rights acquired under the above mentioned agreement to the fourth defendant. This document was also annexed to the reply of the fourth defendant as the second attachment. Thus, he submitted that documents referred to in the plaint and the attachments thereto establish that the plaintiff has no cause of action to seek the relief prayed for in the suit.

5. This contention was refuted by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the suit pertains to the alleged agreement dated 16.08.2013 between the plaintiff and the applicants/first and second defendants herein. By referring to the said agreement, he pointed out that the agreement is fabricated and, therefore, the plaintiff