The main legal point established in the judgment is that documents in possession of the defendants can be ordered to be produced under Order 11, Rule 14 CPC based on specific admissions by the defendant's witness, emphasizing the relevance and essentiality of the documents for determining the controversy.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Petitioners have challenged order dated 05.03.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide which application filed by the respondents under Order 11, Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC and read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act was partly allowed.

2. Petitioner No.1 is a Company and is governed by the laws of United States of America. Petitioner No.1 provides various services of the internet such as e-mail, social networking sites etc. Similarly, petitioner No.2 is also a Company under the laws of United States of America. Petitioner No.2 is an online service provider and provides a platform for watching and sharing videos worldwide through the website www.youtube.com. Petitioner No.2 is a subsidiary of petitioner No.1-Company.

3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts for infringement of copyright of the plaintiffs. Para No.9 of the plaint give details of films produced, directed and distributed by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were having copyrights of the same. Para No.9 of the plaint reads as under:-

9. The plaintiff has produced, directed, acquired and distributed several films till date and is presently holding copyrights in respect of numerous films including the following:-

"(1) Ustad (1957) B/W,

(2) Naya Sansar (1959) B/W,

(3) Samson (1964),

(4) Yeh Raat Phir Na Ayegi (1966),

(5) Kahin Din Kahin Ratt (1968),

(6) Samadhi (1972),

(7) Intaqaam (Nov. 1988),

(8) Lootere (April, 1993),

(9) Ajay (December, 1996),

(10) Jaanwar (December, 1999),

(11) Ek Rishta the Bond of Love (May, 2001)

(12) Haan Maine Bhi Pyaar Kiya (Feb, 2002),

(13) Talaash (Jan, 2003),

(14) Andaaz (May, 2003),

(15) Barsaat (Aug, 2005),

(16) Dosti (Dec. 2005),

(17) Mere Jeevan Saathi (Feb. 2006),

(18) Shaka Laka Boom Boom (April 2007) and others"

4. Prayer clause of the suit reads as under:-

"(i) grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives and all others acting on their behalf and in active concert or participation with them or any of them from reproducing, adapting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, publicly performing, disseminating or displaying on their websites or otherwise infringing in any manner any Cinematograph Films, audio visual works in which the plaintiff owns exclusive, valid and subsisting copyrights;

(ii) grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives and all others acting on their behalf and in active concert or participation with them or any of them from causing, contributing to, inducing, enabling, facilitating or participating in the infringement of any Cinematograph Films, audio visual works in which the plaintiff owns exclusive, valid and subsisting copyrights on their websites or otherwise;

(iii) grant an order of rendition of accounts by the defendants to the plaintiff.

(iv) grant an order requiring the defendants jointly and severally to pay damages as stated herein above to the plaintiff;

(v) grant costs of the instant suit to the plaintiff; and

(vi) pass any other such orders in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity."

5. Evidently prayer No.1 relates to the items given in para No.9 of the plaint. Prayer No.3 exclusively relates to rendition of accounts by the defendants to the plaintiff. Prayer No.4 relates to the damages against the defendants.

6. Both the parties went to trial on specific issues. During course of proceedings, Ms. Debra Tucker was examined as DW 2 by the defendants. In the cross examination of the witness on 05.01.2016, 07.01.2016 and 08.01.2016, certain admissions were noticed by the plaintiffs. On the basis of aforesaid admissions, an application was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 11, Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC and read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act.

7.