- (1.) This First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Civil Procedure Code is against an exparte injunction dated 29.5.2006 passed by the Incharge District Judge, Meerut in Original Suit No. 1 of 2006 restraining the defendant-appellants from printing, publishing and selling the books detailed at the foot of plaint and from using the name G Ram or J Ram.
(2.) The brief facts, as enumerated in the plaint is, that the plaintiffs' father G Ram and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers. The plaintiffs father had written several books which were published by a firm known as Ashok Prakashan, in which defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the partners. It is alleged that the appellant's father was also a partner in the said firm. However, there was no deed in writing but the plaintiffs mother Sheela Devi was a partner in the firm and that an agreement to this effect was executed in writing. The plaintiff contended that his father died on 24.2.2004 and that the plaintiff inherited the Copyright of the books written by his father. It was alleged that after the death of his father, the plaintiffs were selling the books under the name of J Ram and that no royalty was being paid by the defendants to the plaintiff on the books sold by the defendants' firm. Consequently, the plaintiffs prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from printing, publishing or selling the books written by the plaintiffs' father G Ram and also prayed for the defendants be further restrained from using the name G Ram as J Ram.
(3.) The said suit was instituted on the last working day of the Civil Court, Meerut on 29-5-2006 before the Incharge District Judge and on the same date, an exparte injunction was granted restraining the defendants from printing, publishing and selling the books, detailed at the foot of the plaint and from using the name G Ram or J Ram. The Court below while granting the injunction held : "The purpose of the suit shall be frustrated, if interim injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff because the defendants have been continuously infringing the copyright of the plaintiff.";