Madras High Court
N.Suresh vs C.Prem Kumar on 6 February, 2023
C.S.No.661 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.S.661 of 2019
(Comm. Suits)
N.Suresh ... Plaintiff
Vs.
C.Prem Kumar ... Defendant
Civil Suit (Commercial Suits) is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 r/w. Sections 17, 55 and 62 of the Copyright
Act, 1955 r/w. Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
r/w. Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, praying to pass a Judgment
and Decree against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff:-
(a) Declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the Intellectual
Property – the original Script “92”, and the defendant has
infringed the same by copying and making Script “92” into
Tamil Movie “96” as well as Telugu remake “96”;
(b) Grant Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendant, his
men, agents, or persons acting on their behalf, from in any
manner infringing the Plaintiff's lawful right over the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 5
C.S.No.661 of 2019
Intellectual Property – original Script “92”;
(c) costs of the Suit; and
(d) such other and further orders as this Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
For Plaintiff : No appearance
For Defendant : Mr.C.Kaveen
for Mr.Avinash Krishnan Ravi
*****
JUDGMENT
When this case was taken up for hearing on 03.02.2023, there was
no representation on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore,
this case was directed to be listed today, i.e. on 06.02.2023, under the
caption 'for dismissal'. Today, the learned counsel for the defendant alone is
present. However, there is no representation on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. The Court Records indicates that the suit summons was served on
the sole defendant on 30.12.2019. The defendant had also filed Written
Statement, pursuant to which, issues were framed. On 20.04.2022, both
parties have filed a common proposed Case Management Schedule and
therefore the case was thereafter directed to be listed before the Additional
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.661 of 2019
Master - II for recording evidence by fixing the dates for recording
evidences. In the Case Management Schedule filed by the both parties, the
plaintiff had proposed to examine about 7 witnesses.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 20.04.2022, the case was
listed before the Additional Master – II on 06.06.2022, 10.06.2022 and
15.06.2022. On these dates, none of the plaintiff's witness were present
before the learned Additional Master – II. It appears that the plaintiff was
not interested in pursuing with the case as neither the witnesses nor the
learned counsel for the plaintiff were present before the learned Additional
Master – II on the dates fixed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022.
As there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiff on the previous
occasion and even today, it has to be construed that the plaintiff is not
interested in pursuing with this Civil Suit.
4. Therefore, this Civil Suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. Parties
to bear their own cost.
06.02.2023
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.661 of 2019
Internet: Yes/No
Index: Yes/ No
jen
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
C.S.661 of 2019
(Comm. Suits)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.661 of 2019
06.02.2023
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
