Judgment :- These Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: O.A.No.300 of 2007: This application has been by the plaintiff to pass an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, its men, agents, servants, distributors or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing upon the plaintiff’s copyrights contained in musical works and sound recordings in the list of Songs set out in the schedule of the judges summons by offering for sale, distribution or circulation in any manner the respondent/defendant’s CD ROMs titled “ANNAMACHARYA SANKEERTANAS” AND “SRI TYAGARAJA KRITIS” or in any other form whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. A.No.4108 of 2007: This application has been filed by the plaintiff to implead the second respondent as the second respondent in the above O.A.No.300 of 2007 in C.S.No.217 of 2007. A.No.4109 of 2007: This application has been filed by the plaintiff to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint in C.S.No.217 of 2007 as per schedule to this Judge’s summons. A.No.4110 of 2007: This application has been filed by the plaintiff to implead the second respondent as the second defendant in the above C.S.No.217 of 2007. A.No.3673 of 2007: This application has been filed by the defendant to vacate the ad-interim injunction granted on 28.03.2007 in O.A.No.300 of 2007 in C.S.No.217 of 2007. A.No.3674 of 2007: This application has been filed by the defendant to reject the plaint in C.S.No.217 of 2007. A.No.3675 of 2007: This application has been filed by the defendant to strike off the plaint in C.S.No.217 of 2007. A.No.3676 of 2007: This application has been filed by the defendant to suspend the ad-interim injunction granted on 28.03.2007 in O.A.No.300 of 2007 in C.S.No.217 of 2007. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that they are the owners of the copyright of the sound recording and musical works contained in the suit schedule. Nobody else can reproduce the said works. While so, the defendant has copied the song set out in the suit schedule and released the same by way of C.D. Roms titled (1) Annamacharya Sankeertanas and (2) Sri Tyagaraja Kritis. The said C.D. Roms are in complete infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for damages and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has also purchased one C.D. of the respondent/defendant from a musical outlet in Chennai on 24.02.2007. The said C.D. Roms are in complete infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for damages and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has also purchased one C.D. of the respondent/defendant from a musical outlet in Chennai on 24.02.2007. A telegraphic notice was also issued to the defendant on 8.3.2007 to withdraw all the infringing copies from the market. The defendant not only copied the musical work and sound recordings of the plaintiff but also selling the same in the market at a low price to cause loss to the plaintiff. Therefore, pending suit an interim injunction was also sought for by the plaintiff. 3. This court on 20.03.2007 granted an order of interim injunction which was subsequently modified on 28.03.2007 thereby the respondents/defendants were restrained from manufacturing further cassettes and CD Roms containing the songs titled Annamacharya Sankeertanas and Sri Tyagaraja Kritis over which the plaintiff has got a copyright. 4. The defendant filed an application in A.No.3673 of 2007 to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 28.03.2007 in O.A.No.300 of 2007. Along with this application, the defendant has also filed other applications viz., A.No.3674 of 2007 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint in C.S.No.217 of 2007 and A.No.3675 of 2007 to strike off the plaint in C.S.No.217 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C. and A.No.3676 of 2007 to suspend the ad interim injunction granted by this Court on 28.03.2007 in O.A.No.300 of 2007. 5. The case of the applicant/defendant in all these above applications is that the suit itself is not maintainable in law as it is barred by Sec.16 of the Copyright Act 1957. The interim orders are to be vacated for suppression of material facts before this Court. According to the defendant, they are in the business of manufacture of recordable compact discs (VCDs and digital versatile discs (DVDs). Their products are well known for good quality and durability and they have good reputation and goodwill in India. In 2006, the defendant decided to venture into business of Home Video entertainment which would involve manufacture and sale of various Indian, regional language film songs, popular carnatic and devotional songs etc. and VCD and DVD. The same would be sold for the purpose of private/Home viewing at reasonable rates. The defendant has also obtained licence and other rights for marketing the same. and VCD and DVD. The same would be sold for the purpose of private/Home viewing at reasonable rates. The defendant has also obtained licence and other rights for marketing the same. Thereafter, they manufacture VCD in large numbers and started selling them in the local market at a price of Rs.49/- to Rs.69/- when the other VCD and DVD were sold in the market for about Rs.200/- to Rs.400/-. For the first time, the VCDs and DVDs were sold at a low rate. The defendant has also obtained copyright of the manufacturing and marketing rights to atleast 5000 film songs and 50 devotional carnatic songs. In July 2006, one Mr. V. Krishnaprasad representing Krishi Multi Media and Wep design Lab, approached the defendant stating that he was a holder of copyright in 12 titles and stated that he had devised an interactive multi media system whereby the VCD containing the same musical content could be played on a computer whereby the music could be heard and simultaneously the lyrics of the song would scroll on the monitor in different languages. The system permit the licencees to choose any language which he could read the lyrics. The lyrics were made available in Telugu, Kanada, Malayalam and Hindi and even in English. The entire objective was to popularize devotional songs and make them available to the people at large at low price. Therefore, the defendant entered into one agreement with the said M/s. Krishi and agreed to manufacture and sell its interactive multi media VCD containing devotional songs grouped into three different VCD such as Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam, Annamacharya Sankeertanas and Sri Tyagaraja Kritis. Out of these three, only Annamacharya Sankeertanas and Sri Tyagaraja Kritis are the subject matter of the suit. The defendant started mass production and sale of the said VCD in the month of February 2007 itself. The defendant is thus manufacturing and distributing the said music work and the defendant has not claimed any copyright in the same. Even the VCD sold by the defendant would be prominently displayed on the front side of the VCD that the copyright is owned by M/s. Krishi. On the in-lay card, it is prominently displayed that the VCD’s are “exclusively manufactured, marketed and distributed by Moser Baer India Ltd., the defendant herein. Therefore, the copyright holder of Krishi name was prominently displayed by the defendant with address. On the in-lay card, it is prominently displayed that the VCD’s are “exclusively manufactured, marketed and distributed by Moser Baer India Ltd., the defendant herein. Therefore, the copyright holder of Krishi name was prominently displayed by the defendant with address. While so, the above suit has been filed by the plaintiff alleging that the defendant is selling the musical work with multi media, amounts to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright. 6. The further case of the defendant is that the copyright work of the plaintiff is not registered and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim infringement on the said copyright. If at all the plaintiff has any copyright over the product he claims, then the plaintiff should have sought for a declaration and not a mere injunction. Therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected in liminie. 7. It is further case of the defendant that M/s. Krishi from whom the defendant entered into an agreement to manufacture and distribute the VCD is a licencee of the said musical works from the plaintiffs. A letter to that effect dt.12.10.2004, giving permission to the said M/s. Krishi to use the said musical work in his multi media VCD and sell them in the market has been given to the said M/s. Krishi by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also received a “one time” fee of Rs.250/- per song from the said M/s. Krishi. Thus, on the licence issued by the plaintiff to M/s. Krishi to exploit the said musical works, the said Krishi has been doing the same. Thus, Krishi is a lawful licencee of the said musical works and has the right to make copies of the said work. But suppressing the letter dt.12.10.2004, the suit has been filed and an interim order has been obtained. M/s. Krishi is also not made as a party to the suit proceedings deliberately. Hence, they pray for vacating the interim order granted on 28.03.2007. 8. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed three applications, namely, A.Nos.4108 of 2007 to implead Thiru V. Krishnaprasad in O.A.No.300 of 2007, 4109 of 2007 to amend the plaint, A.No.4110 of 2007 to implead the said V. Krishnaprasad as the second defendant in the suit. 9. A common counter affidavit was filed by the defendant/first respondent in all the three applications. 8. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed three applications, namely, A.Nos.4108 of 2007 to implead Thiru V. Krishnaprasad in O.A.No.300 of 2007, 4109 of 2007 to amend the plaint, A.No.4110 of 2007 to implead the said V. Krishnaprasad as the second defendant in the suit. 9. A common counter affidavit was filed by the defendant/first respondent in all the three applications. According to the first respondent, the plaintiff cannot implead the second respondent now and they should only file a new suit against him. On the very same basis, they are opposing the amendment application also. According to the defendant/first respondent neither Thiru V. Krishnaprasad could be impleaded nor the plaintiff could be allowed to amend the plaint as it gives a new cause of action and if at all the plaintiff wants to proceed against the second respondent, they should only file a fresh suit. 10. Thiru V. Krishnaprasad, the proposed party/the second respondent in the above three applications has also filed a common counter affidavit. In his counter, it is stated by him that he is a well recognized musician and the Tirupathi Devasthanam itself recognized his work on Thiruppavai which he published as an interactive Multi media C.D. Rom. According to him, no one can claim copyright on the classical works of saintly personalities and therefore, the plaintiff cannot complain of any infringement of copyright. It is the specific case that he came into contact with the plaintiff and the plaintiff wanted him to use his expertise to complete the work of renowned musician K.L. Saigal. Though he completed the work and handed over all the materials, the plaintiff did not show any interest in marketing the same. It is his further case that the plaintiff did not produce any C.D. Rom entitled Annamacharya Sankeertanas or Thiagaraja Krithis exclusively. As the plaintiff could not pay him and could not proceed with the project of compilation of Saigal’s works, they assured him that he could use some of their recorded songs on Annamacharya Sankeertanas and Thiagaraja Krithis in his works and adjust the amounts to be paid by him for each song against the balance payment of Rs.15,000/- payable by the plaintiff for the compilation of Saigal’s works. For that purpose, the plaintiff gave him a letter dated 12.10.2004. Therefore, according to him, he has nothing to do with the suit and he need not be impleaded at all. For that purpose, the plaintiff gave him a letter dated 12.10.2004. Therefore, according to him, he has nothing to do with the suit and he need not be impleaded at all. Having suppressed the material facts and the letter dt.12.10.2004 in the plaint, the plaintiff is now filling up the lacuna by filing the above applications. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of all the three applications. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the learned counsel for the defendant and the learned counsel for the proposed impleading party. I have also gone through the documents available on record. 12. First, let me consider the O.A.No.300 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff for getting an order of interim injunction. 13. Admittedly, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant daringly copied the songs as set out in the suit schedule and released the same by way of C.D. Roms titled with (1) Annamacharya Sankeertanas and (2) Sri Thiagaraja Krithis and the C.D.Roms are in complete infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiff. 14. The case of the defendant is that they have entered into an agreement with one Thiru V. Krishnaprasad, who was given a letter dt.12.10.2004 by the plaintiff licensing him to sell the musical works of the plaintiff in VCD format with multi media option. As per the agreement with the said Thiru V. Krishnaprasad, the defendant started mass production and sale of the said V.C.Ds. It is made clear by the defendant that they are not claiming any copyright and they clearly displayed on the front of the V.C.D. that the copyright is owned by the said Thiru V. Krishnaprasad. 15. Only after the defendant filed applications in A.No.3673 to 3676 of 2007, the plaintiff filed applications in A.Nos.4108 to 4110 of 2007 seeking to implead the said Thiru V. Krishnaprasad and to amend the plaint. 16. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing this fact which in my view is material while deciding the grant of injunction. When an agreement is made by the plaintiff with the said Thiru V. Krishnaprasad to use their musical works by giving a letter dt.12.10.2004 and on that basis the said Krishnaprasad enters into an agreement with the defendant, then prima facie it cannot be said that the defendant is infringing the copyright of the plaintiff. When an agreement is made by the plaintiff with the said Thiru V. Krishnaprasad to use their musical works by giving a letter dt.12.10.2004 and on that basis the said Krishnaprasad enters into an agreement with the defendant, then prima facie it cannot be said that the defendant is infringing the copyright of the plaintiff. Further, the defendant is on record stating that they are not claiming any copyright and in fact they prominently displayed on the V.C.D. that the copyright is owned by M/s. Krishi In such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction and accordingly. I have no hesitation in vacating the interim order granted on 28.03.2007 in O.A.No.300 of 2007. Consequently, Appln. No.3673 of 2007 is allowed and O.A.No.300 of 2007 is dismissed. In view of the orders passed in the above applications, no order needs to be passed in A.No.3676 of 2007 and the same is closed. 17. While considering the other applications i.e. A.No.3674 of 2007 filed to reject the plaint and A.No.3675 of 2007 filed to strike off the plaint, I am of the view that these applications could be decided along with the main suit. 18. While considering the impleading applications filed in A.No.4108 of 2007, 4110 of 2007 and A.No.4109 of 2007 filed for amendment, I am of the considered view that Thiru V. Krishnaprasad is definitely a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the suit and therefore, A.No.4110 of 2007 is allowed. As I have already dismissed O.A.No.300 of 2007, the said Thiru Krishnaprasad could not be impleaded in O.A.No.300 of 2007 and therefore Appln. No.4108 of 2007 is closed. 19. Coming to the amendment application in A.No.4109 of 2007, I am of the considered view that these amendments would not make out a new case and would not also change the character of the suit. Therefore, it could be allowed on cost. Accordingly, A.No.4109 of 2007 is allowed on condition that the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs.1000/- to the Hon’ble Chief Justice Fund of High Court, Madras within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is made clear that if the cost aforesaid is not paid within the time stipulated, Appln. No.4109 of 2007 will be dismissed without further reference to this Court. 20. It is made clear that if the cost aforesaid is not paid within the time stipulated, Appln. No.4109 of 2007 will be dismissed without further reference to this Court. 20. Though a number of judgment are relied on by the learned counsel for the parties, I am not referring to them as these interlocutory applications could be disposed of without reference to them.