The High Court of Madras dismissed a civil suit for non-prosecution as the plaintiff failed to appear for hearing. The court noted previous dismissals and lack of representation, striking off the suit without costs.
Suit C.S.No.686 of 1995 dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
TUESDAY, THE 26th DAY OF APRIL 2022
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.S.No.686 of 1995
J.Karunakaran No.27, Meeran Sahib Street, Madras -2.
... Plaintiff
Vs.
Civil Suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a
judgement and decree against the defendants:-
i) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
2
limited copy rights in 16MM commercial and non-commercial rights for the entire world including India from 1.1.1995 onwards and the telecastying rights of the entire world including India for 99 years in the picture Sivantha Mann (colour) Tamil featuring Shivaji Ganes, Kanchena and others and direction by Sridhar.
ii) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the plaintiff's rights of exploitation exhibition and distribution of the picture 'Sivantha Mann' colour - starring Shivaji Ganesan, Kanchena and others, directed by Sridhar in 16 MM. and telecasting rights for the entire world including India through Satellite and Dhoordharshan Kendra in India.
iii) For costs of this suit.
This Civil Suit coming on this day before this court for hearing, the Plaintiff and 2nd defendant herein having not appearing in person or by advocate and defendants 3 & 4 herein having not appeared in person or by advocate and said defendants 3 & 4 having been set ex parte on 26.06.2007 and upon reading the plaint filed herein and the suit in C.S.No.686 of 1995 having been dismissed for non prosecution against the 1st defendant vide order dated 31.01.1998 and
3
It is ordered as follows:-
That the suit in C.S.No.686 of 1995 be and is hereby dismissed for
non prosecution.
WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL 2022.
Sd./-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (O.S.I)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
4
KY
08.06.2022
C.S. No.686 of 1995
ORDER
DATED : 26.04.2022
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
FOR APPROVAL: 08.06.2022
APPROVED ON: 08.06.2022
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.S.No.686 of 1995
J.Karunakaran ... Plaintiff
Vs.
Civil Suit is filed under Section 55 and 62 of the Copy Rights Act 1957 and under Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules.
For Plaintiff : No Appearance
For D1 : Disd for Non-Prosecution by Order dated 31.01.1998
6
For D2 : Served - No Appearance
D3 & D4 - Set Exparte on 26.06.2007
JUDGMENT
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 22.04.2022, there was
no representation for the plaintiff. Hence, the Registry was directed to post the matter under the caption “For dismissal” on 26.04.2022. Accordingly,
when the matter is listed today i.e. on 26.04.2022 under the said caption, there is no representation for the plaintiff even today. Hence, this Civil Suit is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.
Sd./-V.B.S.J 29.04.2022 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil suit should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the plaintiff fails to appear for hearing despite prior notice.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s. R.R.C. Pictures
M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory
The Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra of Madras
Controller of Programmes, Regional Language Satellite Service
V. Bhavani SubbaRao
A. K. Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
