JUDGMENT (Prayer in A.No.3163 of 2022: This application is filed under Order XVI Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint in C.S.(Comm.) No.87 of 2022. C.S.(Comm.) No.87 of 2022: The suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w. Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side rules read with Section 2(1)(C)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act and Section 62 of Copy Rights Act 1957 prays for a Judgment and Decree against defendants 1 and 2 (i) for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 herein, their agents, servants or anybody claiming through or under them from in any manner claiming any right more particular satellite rights of the picture title “Aaradugula Bullet” under the fabricated Agreement dated 16.08.2012; (ii) pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case an thus render justice; and (iii) for cost of the suit.) 1. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants from claiming any right in the movie ''Aaradugula Bullet'' under the alleged fabricated agreement dated 16.08.2013. The first and second defendants in the suit presented this application for rejection of the plaint. 2. The main ground on which rejection is prayed for is that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action because the plaintiff assigned the entire exclusive satellite, digital and other electronic media rights to the second respondent herein through an assignment deed dated 27.09.2021, which predates the suit. 3. Oral submissions on behalf of the applicant were made by Mr.K.Hari Shankar, learned counsel, and on behalf of the first respondent by Mr.E.Om Prakash, learned senior counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is evident from the plaint and documents referred to therein that the plaintiff had assigned the copyright in relation to satellite rights, digital rights and other electronic media rights in the movie “Aaradugula Bullet” to the second respondent herein under assignment deed dated 27.09.2021. In turn, the second respondent assigned the said rights to the third respondent herein through assignment deed dated 28.09.2021. Consequently, it was contended that the plaintiff did not have the cause of action to sue as on the date of presentation of the plaint. In turn, the second respondent assigned the said rights to the third respondent herein through assignment deed dated 28.09.2021. Consequently, it was contended that the plaintiff did not have the cause of action to sue as on the date of presentation of the plaint. Learned counsel referred to paragraph 12 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff referred to the notice dated 27.12.2021 from the applicants/first and second defendants to the fourth defendant. He also referred to the reply dated 29.12.2021 from the fourth defendant and, in particular, to the attachment thereto. He pointed out that the first attachment thereto is the assignment agreement dated 27.09.2021 between the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent/third defendant. Under the said agreement, the plaintiff assigned sole and exclusive copyright over the movie “Aaradugula Bullet” to and in favour of the third defendant. By referring to the schedule to the assignment agreement, he pointed out that all satellite, Internet/digital and other rights were assigned to the third defendant. Pursuant thereto, he stated that the third defendant, in turn, assigned the rights acquired under the above mentioned agreement to the fourth defendant. This document was also annexed to the reply of the fourth defendant as the second attachment. Thus, he submitted that documents referred to in the plaint and the attachments thereto establish that the plaintiff has no cause of action to seek the relief prayed for in the suit. 5. This contention was refuted by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the suit pertains to the alleged agreement dated 16.08.2013 between the plaintiff and the applicants/first and second defendants herein. By referring to the said agreement, he pointed out that the agreement is fabricated and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to institute and prosecute the suit to establish that the agreement on which the applicants/first and second defendants rely upon is fabricated. His next submission was that disputes relating to assignments are required to be adjudicated by the Commercial Court after amendments were made to Section 19A of the Copyright Act, 1957, pursuant to the Tribunals Reforms Act. His last submission was that only satellite and digital rights pertaining to the Telugu movie were assigned under the agreement dated 27.09.2021. Consequently, he stated that some rights were retained by the plaintiff and that the plaint is therefore not liable to be rejected. 6. His last submission was that only satellite and digital rights pertaining to the Telugu movie were assigned under the agreement dated 27.09.2021. Consequently, he stated that some rights were retained by the plaintiff and that the plaint is therefore not liable to be rejected. 6. Under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC), a plaint is liable to be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action. The established legal position is that an application under Clause (a) should be decided largely on the basis of statements made in the plaint and not by reference to statements made in the written statement or in other documents. If the plaint in the present case is examined, paragraph 12 thereof refers to the lawyer's notice dated 27.12.2021 from the first and second defendants to the fourth defendant. It also refers to the reply dated 29.12.2021 from the fourth defendant to the first and second defendants, and to the fact that the fourth defendant was called upon to disclose the documents under which they acquired copyright. Since the said communications are referred to the plaint, the said communications and the attachments thereto may be referred to for purposes of deciding this application. 7. While considering an application for rejection of the plaint, the Hon'ble Supreme Court instructs in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510 that the plaint should be read meaningfully and not formally to examine whether it discloses a cause of action. 8. The applicants have placed on record the said notices. The reply dated 29.12.2021 from the fourth defendant to the notice dated 27.12.2021 contains three attachments. The first attachment is the assignment agreement dated 27.09.2021 between the plaintiff and third defendant. Clause (1) thereof stipulates that the plaintiff assigns to the third defendant herein the sole and exclusive copyright over the movie. The said clause sets out the nature of rights assigned to the third defendant. In addition, a schedule has been appended to the agreement. The said schedule sets out the rights assigned and specifies that the assignment is on perpetual and permanent basis. The second attachment to the communication is the agreement dated 28.09.2021 between the third and fourth defendants. The said clause sets out the nature of rights assigned to the third defendant. In addition, a schedule has been appended to the agreement. The said schedule sets out the rights assigned and specifies that the assignment is on perpetual and permanent basis. The second attachment to the communication is the agreement dated 28.09.2021 between the third and fourth defendants. On perusal thereof, it appears that all the rights assigned in favour of the third defendant were, in turn, assigned to the fourth defendant under this agreement. In fact, the schedule thereto is identical to the schedule under the earlier agreement dated 27.09.2021. The plaint was presented on 05.04.2022, which is evidently subsequent to the agreement dated 27.09.2021 and the agreement dated 28.09.2021. 9. The first respondent/plaintiff cannot and does not deny execution of the assignment agreements referred to above. While a feeble attempt was made to contend that all rights were not assigned thereunder, the agreements indicate otherwise. Learned senior counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff contended that the assignment of rights by the plaintiff in favour of the third defendant does not preclude the plaintiff from instituting or prosecuting the suit to prevent the applicants/first and second defendants from claiming rights under the agreement dated 16.08.2013. In effect, the plaintiff asserts the existence of a continuing right to seek relief in relation to a rival document under which the first and second defendants claim copyright over the same movie. Once the assignment was made in favour of the third defendant and, thereafter, by the third defendant in favour of the fourth defendant, the party which would be affected by a rival claim in respect of copyright would be the fourth defendant. The situation is akin to the erstwhile owner of an immovable asset presenting a suit to challenge a document under which a rival claimant claims title to the said immovable property. Upon conveying the immovable property, such suit may only be instituted and prosecuted by the owner of the property. Likewise, the party with a subsisting cause of action in relation to the allegedly fabricated agreement dated 16.08.2013 is the fourth defendant. Upon conveying the immovable property, such suit may only be instituted and prosecuted by the owner of the property. Likewise, the party with a subsisting cause of action in relation to the allegedly fabricated agreement dated 16.08.2013 is the fourth defendant. If the fourth defendant institutes proceedings and chooses to array the plaintiff as a party to proceedings against the applicants/first and second defendants herein, undoubtedly, the plaintiff would be entitled to support the fourth defendant by submitting necessary pleadings and documents to the Court to establish that the agreement dated 16.08.2013 is fabricated. However, the plaintiff is not entitled to institute and prosecute the suit after assigning all satellite, Internet and related rights in the movie “Aaradugula Bullet“ in favour of the third defendant. 10. Learned senior counsel also contended that a dispute relating to assignment is required to be resolved by the Commercial Court under the amended Section 19 A of the Copyright Act. Nothing turns on this submission for the reason that the plaintiff is not entitled to institute proceedings relating to a dispute over assignment of copyright after divesting itself of all rights pursuant to the assignment. 11. For reasons set out above, it is concluded that the plaintiff had no cause of action to institute the suit on the date of presentation thereof and the said situation continues as on date. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to succeed. Hence, this application is allowed and the plaint is rejected.