The law of limitation bars remedies but does not extinguish substantive rights; an independent claim for injunction may proceed despite a time-barred declaration.

JUDGMENT

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J

This Original Side Appeal is at the instance of Appellant/Plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2022 in the Civil Suit (Comm.) No.331 of 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the said suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

2. The brief and relevant facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are stated hereunder:

2.1. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.

2.2. The plaintiff claimed that it had entered into the two assignment agreements with the defendants 2 & 3 on 17.07.2008 which are marked as Exhibits P1 & P2 acquiring the exclusive and irrevocable copyright in the works relating to the entire sound tracks in the films namely 1) Seetha KokaChilaka (Telugu), 2) Sitara (Telugu), 3) Sagara Sangamam (Telugu), 4) Sagara Sangamam (Malayalam), 5) Salangai Oli (Tamil), 6) Shankara Bharanam (Telugu) & 7) Thayaramma Bangarayya (Telugu) (hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule Films') and claiming to be the sole and absolute owner of the audio copyrights in the Schedule Films and also claiming to have been exploiting the rights in the said audio works since the date of acquiring the same under Exhibits P1 & P2, i.e.17.07.2008.

2.3. While so, the plaintiff received a letter dated 06.08.2010 from the 1^st defendant which is marked as Exhibit P3 informing the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant is the sole and absolute owner of the copyright and other related rights in and to the sound recordings and the underlying musical and literary works in the songs pertaining to the Schedule Films and calling upon the plaintiff to cease and desist from exploiting the sound recordings. However, the plaintiff did not choose to respond to the said letter of the 1^st defendant and offered an explanation in the plaint stating that the plaintiff, on receipt of the said letter dated 06.08.2010, has contacted the defendants 2 & 3 and the defendants 2 & 3 informed the plaintiff that they have assigned the audio rights in respect of the Schedule Films in favour of M/s.Sea Records for a period of 25 years and that the said period had expired. It is further claimed that the plaintiff was also informed by the defendants 2 & 3 that they have already addressed a letter to the 1^st defendant on 13.04.2005 which is marked as Exhibit P6 informing the 1^st defendant that the period of assignment given in favour of M/s.Sea Records had come to an end and the 1^st defendant was called upon to pay royalty to the defendants 2 & 3 for exploiting the audio rights in the Schedule Films. On receipt of the said letter Exhibit P6, the 1^st defendant, through its letter dated 17.08.2005 marked as Exhibit D8 appears to addressed the defendants 2 & 3 denying the claim made by the defendants 2 and 3 in their letter Exhibit P6. There was further reference in the Exhibit D8 letter to the legal notice dated 18.10.2000 and the reply thereto dated 04.11.2000. But the further elaborate reference to the said letters may not be necessary for disposal of this appeal.

2.4. The plaintiff, having kept quiet on receipt of the Exhibit P3, letter dated 06.08.2010 for about 4 years, filed the present suit on 13.05.2014. The 1^st defendant contested the suit by denying the claim and rights of the plaintiff over the Schedule Films and also asserting that the 1^st defendant is the absolute owner of the said rights over the Schedule Films. However, no counter-claim is made against the plaintiff, though plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that it has been exploiting the claimed rights in the Schedule Films since the date of their assignment in the year 2008. The defendant