Advocates:
['M/s Bharadwajaramasubramaniam R', '', 'shilpa subramanian', 'K AISHWARYA RUKMANI KRISH-MS']

A.No.3265 of 2022

A.No.3265 of 2022

in

C.S.No.330 of 2018

C.SARAVANAN, J.

This application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to

reject the plaint.

2. This application has been filed by the first defendant in the above

suit. Earlier, an interim order came to be passed by this Court on

17.05.2018. This interim order was made absolute on 13.08.2018.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the first defendant filed

O.S.A.No.7 of 2019. After detailed consideration of the arguments advanced

by the applicant and the first respondent/plaintiff, herein, the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited

Vs. Fermant Education in O.S.A.No.7 of 2019, passed an order on

08.11.2019 and allowed the appeal of the applicant with the following

observations:

1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.3265 of 2022

“21. In our view the 1^st respondent/plaintiff may have

copyright over the literary content posted/hosted by

them in their website and every instance of copying by

the appellant may amount to infringement of the

copyright of the 1^st respondent/plaintiff. However, for

the purpose of the legal proceedings, it was incumbent

on the part of the 1^st - 2^nd respondents/plaintiffs to file

documents and material object to substantiate the

same.

22. In this case, the 1^st - 2^nd respondents/plaintiffs have

not filed a copy of the alleged copyrighted content

over which they claim copyright. It was for 1^st - 2^nd

respondents/plaintiffs to specify the copyrighted

content in the plaint and also file the same as a suit

document along with a copy of content of the same in

a compact disc/pen drive as a material object.

23. Otherwise, an omnibus relief to the 1^st - 2^nd

respondents/plaintiffs will put constraint on the court

as well to test any violation of its order for any wilful

disobedience of its order, should the 1^st - 2^nd

respondents/plaintiffs initiate such proceeding against

the appellant.

24. Mere exchange of email correspondence between

them showing admission on the part of the appellant

by itself is not sufficient particularly when even as per

the 1^st respondent / plaintiff contents are updated and

uploaded on day to day basis periodically.

25. Therefore, in our view the learned Single Judge

erred while passing the impugned order by dismissing

the Application Nos.4609 & 4699 of 2018 while

deciding to continue the omnibus interim relief in

favour of the respondent/plaintiff. We therefore set

aside the same and remit the case back to the learned

2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.3265 of 2022

Single Judge.

26. We leave it free for the 1^st

- 2^nd

respondents/plaintiffs to file a complete transcript of

the web content as on date of suit along with an

appropriate application seeking leave of the trial

court in the above suit within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file

document.

27. In case, the 1^st - 2^nd respondents plaintiff are able

to demonstrate before the Learned Single Judge that

the appellant had indeed copied and/or violated their

copyright from the content to be filed, the trial court of

the Learned Single Judge, may pass such further

appropriate order, as may be considered just and

proper.

28. We therefore dispose the present appeal with the

above observations and request the Learned Single

Judge also to dispose the suit within the specified time

frame in the case management applicable to the

commercial disputes under the Commercial Disputes

Act, 2015. No cost.”

4. Meanwhile, the applicant herein, the first defendant in the suit in

C.S.No.330 of 2018, was set ex-parte by this Court on 16.10.2019, in view

of the amended provisions of CPC, as made applicable to Commercial

Courts Act, 2015. The aforesaid order dated 16.10.2019, has n