Justice V. Kameswar Rao of Delhi High Court dismissed the application of Atul Kumar Singh, a political activist against Nitish Kumar, the Chief Minister of Bihar.
In his order, Justice Rao observed: "I do not see any merit in the present application. The same is dismissed." The Court noted that the onus was on Atun Kumar singh, the plaintiff "to prove that he is the owner of the copyright." The dispute in the suit was whether the defendants have violated the copyright in the original work of the plaintiff. The witness namely Nitish Kumar was defendant no.1 in the case. Justice Rao disposed of this application which was filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) on Novemver 13, 2019. The plaintiff had prayed for summoning Nitish Kumar as the witness for the next date of hearing i.e. April 12, 2018 or any other earlier date. According to the plaintiff, the witness was significant and as it was have a material impact in establishing the case of the plaintiff, in order to bring on record further evidence with regard to the violation to authorship rights of the literary work titled as “Special Category Status: A case for Bihar” in which the defendant No.1 is the principal actor. The plaintiff had submitted that even though the witness namely, Nitish Kumar was also defendant No.1, there was no bar under the CPC to examine the opposite party as his own witness, more particularly when the defendant No.1 is included in the list of witnesses.
The
counsel for Nitish Kumar opposed it on the ground that the application
preferred by the plaintiff is barred by limitation under Order XVI Rule 1
itself, inasmuch as Order XVI Rule 1(4) mandates, application for
summoning of witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses produced be
obtained, within 5 days from the date of presenting of list of
witnesses. He contended the application was an abuse of process inasmuch
as Nitish Kumar can be cross-examined by the plaintiff at his evidence
stage. He stated that the application was not bona fide and was filed
with ulterior motives as the defendant No.1 is the Chief Minister of the
State of Bihar and the plaintiff wants to gain publicity.
The issues which were framed in the suit on February 3, 2016 were the following:
i.
Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the copy right in the work
"Special Category Status: A Case for Bihar" and if so, whether the
defendants are infringing the copy right of the plaintiff?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so, of what amount?
iii.
Whether the work "Special Category Status: A Case for Bihar is a
Government publication of the defendant no. 4 and accordingly whether
the defendant no. 4 is entitled to relief filed in its counter claim
against the plaintiff?
It
was siubmitted in the plaint that the plaintiff was a researcher who
was pursing his PhD programme in Economics at the Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU), New Delhi. The plaintiff had registered for his Ph.D
in July 2006 after successfully completing his Masters in Arts and
M.Phil from the JNU. The topic of the plaintiff’s Ph.D thesis was “Role
of State in Economic Transformation: A case study of Contemporary
Bihar”. In relation to his thesis the plaintiff started his preliminary
round of survey work involving various persons, authorities,
organizations including people residing in remote rural areas. He
visited many villages in Bihar in the years 2007 and 2008. During this
period, the plaintiff by his efforts, skill and labour collected various
data, relevant literature, and recorded, observed and analyzed
problems, resources, mechanisms etc. related to the dynamics of Bihar’s
underdevelopment. After collection of the above work, the plaintiff
arranged it in a particular manner with his opinion and observation.
Shaibal Gupta, Member Secreary, Patna-based Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI), the defendant No.2 came to know about the plaintiff’s said research work through the plaintiff’s guide/supervisor Dr. Praveen Jha. In November – December 2006 when the plaintiff was in Bihar for his research work, the defendant No.2 after consulting plaintiff’s guide/research supervisor, made a request to the plaintiff that while doing his own survey, if the plaintiff could fill up certain additional forms relating to “Bihar State Land Reform Commission‟s research work”, then in return, the defendant No.2 would take care of the expenses of plaintiff’s field work on actual basis.
In February 2008, the defendant No.2 informed the plaintiff that a PIL is pending before the Patna High Court seeking grant of Special Category Status for the State of Bihar. The defendant No.2 being aware of plaintiff’s research area, suggested to the plaintiff that his personal research could be used for supporting the cause of Bihar and requested the plaintiff to give his study/research material which would be used to support the PIL pending in the Patna High Court. The plaintiff gave “his original work” in soft copy to defendant No.2 in June 2008, with clear direction that the same will be filed only as an annexure to the counter affidavit in the said PIL. That later the plaintiff in his wisdom rearranged certain paragraphs of his work, which would have made the draft more appealing and apt. Thus, within few days, some paragraphs in “the original work of the plaintiff” were rearranged by him, on his personal Laptop. And after rearranging the paragraphs, in “the original work of the plaintiff”, a soft copy was again given to defendant No.2.
Delhi High Court found the reasoning of the plaintiff calling Nitish Kumar, the defendant no.1, as a plaintiff’s witness being a so-called “principal actor” to be unconvincing. It inferred that it was not necessary to summon the defendant no.1 as witness of the plaintiff. Justice Rao observed: "it appears to me that the present application has been made only to put pressure on him as he is being summoned, not in normal course, but as plaintiff witness without cogent reason as such not bona fide nor in the interest of justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment