2023:DHC:2879

CS(COMM) 57/2017

Page 1 of 14

$~7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CS(COMM) 57/2017, I.A. 15601/2017 (for directions u/S 151 of

CPC)

SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr.Ankur Sangal and Ms.Trisha Nag,

Advocates.

versus

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED ..... Defendant

Through:

Ms.Petal Chandhok and Ms.Rupali

Gupta, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

I.A. 5070/2023 (O-XIV R-5 of CPC)

1.

The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under

Order XIV Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) to frame an

additional issue.

2.

Notice in the application was issued on 15^thMarch, 2023 and reply

has been filed on behalf of the defendant.

3.

Following issues were framed on 28^thNovember, 2019:

“i)

Digitally Signed By:AMIT

BANSAL

Signing Date:28.04.2023 17:46:55

Signature Not Verified

2023:DHC:2879

CS(COMM) 57/2017

Page 2 of 14

Relief.”

4.

On 16^thDecember, 2022, a Local Commissioner was appointed to

record the evidence in the matter. Evidence by way of affidavit has been

filed on behalf of the plaintiff, however, the evidence is yet to be recorded.

5.

Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that while

preparing for the evidence in the matter, it came to the notice of the plaintiff

that inadvertently, the issue regarding rendition of accounts by the defendant

has not been framed. Accordingly, the present application has been filed to

frame an issue with regard to the aforesaid.

6.

Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has drawn the

attention of the Court to paragraph 15 of the plaint where averments with

regard to rendition of accounts by the defendant have been made. The

contents of the said paragraph have been denied by the defendant in his

written statement.

7.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that no such

issue with regard to rendition of accounts was framed by the Court on 28^th

November, 2019, when the issues were being framed in the suit. This was

because the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was

governed by a License Agreement in terms of which annual license fee was

Digitally Signed By:AMIT

BANSAL

Signing Date:28.04.2023 17:46:55

Signature Not Verified

2023:DHC:2879

CS(COMM) 57/2017

Page 3 of 14

payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no question of

the defendant providing a statement of accounts and hence, such an issue

was not framed. It is further submitted that the present application has been

filed in a highly belated matter i.e., more than three years after the framing

of issues.

8.

In rejoinder, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff

submits that the License Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant

was terminated on 30^thDecember, 2016 and thereafter, there is no subsisting

contract between the parties and the payments are being made by the

defendant to the plaintiff only in terms of interim orders passed by this

Court.

9.

I have heard the counsels for the parties.

10.

In terms of Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC, the Court is required to

frame issues upon all material propositions of fact or of law on which the

parties are at variance. Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC empowers the Court to

amend issues or frame additional issues before passing a decree if such

issues may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between

the parties.

11.

At this stage, a reference may be made to paragraph 15 of the plaint,

which is set out below:

“15.

Digitally Signed By:AMIT

BANSAL

Signing Date:28.04.2023 17:46:55

Signature Not Verified

2023:DHC:2879

CS(COMM) 57/2017

Page 4 of 14

Defendant.”

12.

In its written statement, the defendant has simply denied the contents

of the aforesaid paragraph and therefore, it is clear that the parties are at

variance on the issue, whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of

accounts and therefore, an issue to this effect is required to be framed for

proper adjudication of the