:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1812 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3668 OF 2003 India Book House Pvt.Ltd ...Plaintiffs Versus Diamond Comics Pvt.Ltd ....Defendants AND AMAR CHITRA KATHA PVT.LTD .....INTERVENOR ====== None for the plaintiffs. Ms.Hemlata Marathe and Rashmi Thakur for Jehangir Gulabbhai and Bilimoria and Daruwala, Adv. for the Defendants. Mr.K.S. Pachoo for the Intervenor. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 7TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This is a Chamber Summons by the Intervenor Applicant praying that they be substituted as plaintiff in the suit. :2: :2: :2: 2. In the Affidavit-in-support it has been contended that the Suit has been filed on the basis that the earlier plaintiff was the exclusive owner of all copy rights in each of the comic/book forming part of the Amar Chitra Katha. 3. It is contended in the affidavit-in-support that by a Deed of Assignment dated 27.6.2007 of Copy Rights/Trade Marks, the Original Plaintiff has assigned to the Applicant the entire Copy Right in the Artistic and literary work of Amar Chitra Katha and on the basis of the same they are seeking to substitute themselves as plaintiffs. 4. The original Defendants have opposed this Chamber Summons on the ground that the Chamber Summons is not by the Assignee and the relief claimed should have been under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC. This is an Application for intervention rather than an Application by an Assignee to substitute itself in the place of Assignor. Hence, the Chamber Summons is not maintainable. :3: :3: :3: 5. The second objection is that the Deed of Assignment upon which reliance is placed is not registered by the Registry of Trade Marks, Copy Rights etc. 6. In my view, insofar as, the Application for substitution is concerned, in the Affidavit-in-support all such requirements as are stipulated by Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC have been set out and satisfied. Merely because the Label or the nomen clature to the Chamber Summons is that of an Intervenor, does not make any difference in the facts of this case. The Application is by the Applicant under a Deed of Assignment and therefore by an Assignee. The objection which is technical in nature is therefore over ruled. 7. Insofar as, the objection that the Deed of Assignment is not registered is concerned, the Applicants Advocate informs me that the Application for registration has been filed and it is pending. That apart, merely because the Application for registration is made and is pending or that presently the registration has not been obtained, does not mean that the Chamber Summons cannot be moved. Ultimately , the :4: :4: :4: effect of non-registration is something which will have to be decided while granting any relief in favour of the Applicant upon their substitution as plaintiff. They may not get any relief if the Assignment in their favour is not valid or cannot be acted upon. That aspect is something which will be gone into at a later stage and presents no bar for passing any orders on the Chamber Summons. 8. As there is no Affidavit-in-reply, relying upon the contents of the Chamber Summons and a copy of Deed of Assignment having been duly annexed, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within 2 weeks from today. Amended copy to be served within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. Additional Written Statement , if any, to be filed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of amended plaint. All contentions on merits are expressly kept open. sd/- *********