Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC determined by assuming averments true; court cannot adjudicate assignment validity, limitation with continuing cause, or agency termination on principal's death at threshold. (24 words)

ORDER : 

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

This application was earlier heard on 20.04.2026 and orders were dictated in Court. Before the order was finalised and signed, at the end of day, learned counsel for the applicant mentioned the matter on the ground that a material fact had not been disclosed by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the matter is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned”. Additional arguments were made today and this order is being issued upon taking note of arguments advanced on both days. 2. The suit was instituted for remedies in respect of the alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in relation to all derivative works based on the Malayalam films RAMJI RAO SPEAKING and MANNAR MATHAI SPEAKING.

3. The defendant has applied for rejection of plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action.

4. The contentions of learned counsel for the applicant/defendant may be summarised as under:

4.1 The plaintiff refers to the production of the sequel of RAMJI RAO SPEAKING in the year 1995 at paragraph No.4 of the plaint. Thereafter, paragraph No.5 refers to the assignment agreement dated 12.05.2022 with no explanation for intervening events;

4.2 The plaint also refers to the production of the cinematographic film HERA PHERI in the year 2000 and to the production of PHIR HERA PHERI in 2006. Even from the narration of facts in the plaint, the suit is patently barred by limitation;

4.3. The assignment agreement is between K.I.Siddique, M.Paul Michael, Mani C.Kappan (as confirming authority) and G.P.Vijayakumar. The plaintiff, Seven Arts International Limited International Limited, is not a party to the assignment agreement. Therefore, as per documents referred to in the plaint, no cause of action accrues to the plaintiff;

4.4 Clause 5 of the assignment agreement records that the assignors agree to initiate legal proceedings against M/s A.G. Film Pvt. Ltd. and Base Industries Group, Mumbai, whereas the suit has been filed by Seven Arts International Limited International Limited;

4.5 In the counter affidavit to this application, at paragraph No.18, the plaintiff states that the assignment agreement authorises enforcement through the Managing Director of the plaintiff as power of attorney holder. The suit has not been filed by G.P.Vijayakumar as power of attorney holder. These defects go to the root of the matter and render the plaint liable for rejection.

4.6 The assignment agreement appears to be champertous inasmuch as it provides for the initiation of litigation by the assignors. The suit should have been framed in accordance with Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) whereas the plaintiff has not adhered to prescribed procedure in said regard.

4.7 The assignment agreement does not fulfil the requirements of Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the Copyright Act).

5. In addition to the arguments advanced on 20.04.2026, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under today:

5.1 One of the principals under power of attorney dated 12.05.2022, Mr.K.I.Siddique, passed away on 08.08.2023. In spite of being aware of such death, the plaintiff did not disclose this crucial fact.

5.2 With the death of one of the principals, the power of attorney ceases to operate and stands revoked in terms of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (the Contract Act). Clause 6 of the agreement dated 12.05.2022 is expressly subject to the assignor satisfying the requirements of Clauses 5 and 10. Therefore, there is no assignment in terms of Section 19 of the Copyright Act. The rights allegedly flowing from agreement dated 12.05.2022 lapse on account of non-exercise within the period stipulated in sub-section (4) of Section 19.

5.3 It is clear from the averments in the plaint and the documents referred to therein that the plaint is directed against the Hindi remake versions of HERA PHERI and PHIR HERA PHERI. When viewed in the context of the pleadings, the suit is barred by limitation.

5.4 On a meaningful reading of