JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated May 7, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 196/2003 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. The suit was filed by the appellant as against the respondents herein alleging violation of the copyright of the appellant in respect of the book ‘GUL MOHAR Graded English Course Reader 1’. It was alleged in the plaint by the appellant that he said appellant owned the copyright of the book `Gul Mohar Graded English Course Reader 1′ and had the exclusive right to publish the work in accordance with section 14(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. The aforesaid suit, however, was proceeded ex parte as the respondents/defendants failed to contest the suit after filing the written statement. The appellant/plaintiff led ex parte evidence on completion of which the learned trial court dismissed t he suit holding that no document has been proved on record by the plaintiff which could satisfactorily prove that the loose sheets which were recovered from the premises of the defendants violated copyright. It was also held that even otherwise the loose sheets could not be said to be a part of the book and, therefore, until and unless the sheets are printed or published by anybody in the form of a book there could not be any occasion for violation of the copyright.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently challenged the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial court contending inter alia that the said findings are illegal and cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of section 14 of the Copyright Act. It was also submitted by him that the appellant has several assignments of copyrights in relation to several books including the book `GUL MOHAR Graded English Course Reader III’ and that the assignment deeds of copyrights in such books are available with the appellant. It is contended that by a bonafide error a wrong assignment deed relating to another GUL MOHAR book was filed in place of the assignment deed relevant to the present case. It has been submitted that although an assignment deed was available with the plaintiff the same could not be filed in the trial court in accordance with law, and the appellant sought to bring it on record by filing a review application which, however, was not allowed. The said review application was dismissed by judgment and order dated July 24, 2004
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants has submitted before us that the suit was proceeded ex parte and the assignment deed which was produced by the appellant/plaintiff in the suit was not the one in relation to the book which was the subject-matter of the suit but was in relation to some other book and, therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. He also submitted that there was no infringement of any copyright by the respondents in the present case and, therefore, the appeal is required to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the impugned judgment in the light of the facts and also the provisions of the Copyright Act to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The findings recorded by the learned trial court that th e loose sheets cannot be said to be a part of the book and that unless and until the sheets were printed or published by anybody in the form of a book there could be no violation of a copyright, are ex facie erroneous and are in violation and in contradiction to the provisions of section 14 of the Copyright Act. It is provided in section 14 of the Copyright Act that the word `copyright’ means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of he acts mentioned therein in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely, in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means. The loose sheets, in our considered opinion, would come within the ambit of the expression `any substantial part thereof’ used in section 14 of the Copyright Act. Therefore, printing of the loose sheets constituting reproduction of substantial part of the said work in material form would also amount to violation of copyright. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court is illegal and being in violation of the aforesaid provisions of section 14(a)(i) of the Copyright Act cannot be sustained.
6. In that view of the matter, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit back the suit to the trial court for reconsideration of the matter in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
7. So far the other plea raised by the appellant regarding rejection of the plea of the appellant to produce the alleged assignment deed is concerned, as we have set aside the judgment on the aforesaid ground and remitted back the matter to the trial court for reconsideration, it is ordered that in case the appellant has any remedy for production of such additional evidence, the said remedy could be resorted to in accordance with law, which shall be considered by the learned trial court in accordance with law.
8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial judge on 6th December, 2004 for further proceedings in the matter.
9. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10. Trial court records be transmitted back immediately.