Decided on August 01,2005



Brij Kishore Sharma, Chairman - (1.) THESE two appeals were filed by Shri Jainendra Jain a resident of Civil lines, Ludhiana against a single order passed by the Registrar of Copyrights. This is a rather weird procedure to adopt. The law does not allow an appellant the privilege of filing an appeal everyday till the period fixed by the statute expires. The law abhors splitting of a cause of action and leans in favour of curbing multiplicity of proceedings. The cause of action in this case is the order of the Registrar. An aggrieved party may file only one appeal and claim whatever relief is desired. Order 2 Rule 2 and. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure lay down these principles. Section 72(1) of the Copyright reads as under: (1) Any person aggrieved by any final decision or order of the Registrar of Copyrights may, within three months from the date of the order or decision, appeal to the Copyright Board.
(2.) This only means that the aggrieved person has the right to file one appeal. The law does not permit splitting up of a claim or multiplication of proceedings by filing successive appeals. Instead of filing a second appeal it would have been better to amend the first appeal in case the appellants felt the necessity to do so. We requested the advocate for the appellant to tell us the difference between the two or to choose one of the appeals as the base. He selected the later one filed on 9.5.2002 and numbered as Appeal No. A 3/2003. This facilitated and helped the opposite party and the Board in looking up references. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order passed by the Registrar of Copyrights in 28.2.2002 allowing the application of Kangaro Industries to register an artistic work. The application was opposed by the present applicant. The Registrar heard both the parties at length and gave a reasoned order allowing the application.
(3.) THE appellant feels aggrieved by the order and has preferred the present appeal. THE grounds taken in the appeal are: 1. THE decision is contrary to the facts of the case. 2. THE decision is contrary to law. 3. THE Registrar failed to appreciate the provisions of Rule 16(3) of the Copyright Rules. 4. THE Registrar has failed to appreciate and follow the decisions of the Board.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.