Through this single judgment, I intend to decide titled appeal (F.A.O No. 29741/2020) along-with F.A.O. No. 39623/2020 and F .A.O No. 39743/2020 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Through this first appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 25.08.2020, whereby the learned trial Court/Presiding Officer, Intellectual Prope rty Tribunal, Lahore accepted the applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, C.P .C filed by the Respondent No. 2, Muhammad Akram Rahi.
3. Brief 'facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 2, Muhammad Akram Rahi, filed two separate suits for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction for infringement of his copyrights against the appellant and Respondents No. 3 to 4 contending therein that he is an exclusiye owner of suit property i.e. poetry , songs composition, production and the Natia Kalain, fully described in the plaint, and no other person or company has right to use the aforesaid properties without gettirrg permission from the owner/Respondent No. 2/plaintif f. The respondent/plaintif f further asserted that the appellant and Respondents No. 3 to 4 are using the Natia Kalam and Songs of the respondent/plaintif f without obtaining any copyrights, as such, they may be restrained to do so.
Alongwith the suits, Respondent No. 2/plaintif f also filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of interim injunction. The suit and application were contested by the appellant and Respondents No. 3 to 4 by filing written statement as well as reply to the application for interim relief. The learned trial Court, through consolidated impugned order dated 25.8.2020, allowed the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by issuing injunction against the appellant. Hence, these appeals.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. In paragraph No. 2 of the plaint, the Respondent No. 2/plaintif f has categorical ly stated that he is an exclusive owner of intellectual property i.e. poetr y, composition, production and Natia Kalam. Para 2 of the plaint-is reproduced as under: "2. That brief facts of the case are that amongst others, the plaintif f is the exclusive owner of the poetry , composition, production and vocal, etc. regarding the following Natia kalam/songs: (Natia Kalam) i. Madiney nu Jandeyaan Rahiya. (Songs) ii. Sargh Gaye merey Naseeb. iii. Jaan Nikal Gayi Meri. iv. Terey V iyah Diyan Ron Paiyaan. v. Challa Galh Di vey gaani. vi. Na Oh W aqt Raye. vii. Karnli Kar Kay Chad Geyoun, viii. T enu V ekh V ekh Dil Mera. ix. Rahiya Oye T era Kot. x. Maa Mari T ey Rishtey ie Muk gaye. xi. lha Kajley W aali Akh Mastani Yaar Di. and no other person or company have any concern, right, title or relations with the above properties of the plaintiff, in any manner whatsoever and the same are registered accordingly under the Intellectual Property Laws in the name of the plaintiff to protect the international and digital rights of the plaintiff over his above said'properties."
In response to the above para of the plaint, respondent in Para 2 of the written statement has admitted the averment, which Para 2 of the written statement is reproduced as under: "2. That the contents of para No. 2 are vehemently denied being incorrect and Defe ndant No. 1 released the songs through plaintiff from 1996 to onwards at numbers of time say like Song No. 2 & 5 was released in the year of 1999, Song No. 6 & 7 is released in 1999 and Song No. 10 was part of feature film Danda Peer which was released on 2002 and once any dialog composition, music, script, story which relates to anybody with relates for making of the film it is all attributed in the name of ownership of producer of said film not any individual so the claim of the plaintiff is highly objectionable in the eyes of law and mere single registratio n of copyright certificate did not fulfill the legal requirement of the law ."
As per the above contests of the written statement the appellant admitted that the material/songs, mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint, was releas ed through plaintif f from 1996 to onwards a number of times which prima facie means that the aforesaid properties are owned by the respondent/plaintif f. Further in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint, the Respondent No. 2 alleged that the appellants/defendants are getting monetary benefits from the properties which are actually owned by the respondent/plaintif f and are contin uously causing damage to the copyrights and monetary benefits of the respondent/ plaintif f. In. written statement and in reply to Paragraph No. 5 of the plaint, the appellant took stance that: "5 It is mandatory to mention here that the Defendant No. 1 issued and released the different albums of the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 always boost and polish the activities of the plaintiff and in the year of 1999 the Defendant No. 1 released album namely YAARIAN and Defendant No. I released album in the year of 2000 namely MELA Y LAGDA Y REHN GE and in furtherance in the year of 2002 Defendant No. 1 release d the album namely MAA which beats the record sale in the whole world."
As per respective pleadings of the parties prima-facie respondent is owner of the suit properties and has absolute right to gain usufructs of the same. The appellant has not bring on record anything to establish any license, permission, authorization or any sort of agreement in its favour , as such, the ingredients required under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction i.e. prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, clearly tilt in favour of the respondent/plaintif f as such Courts below have rightly passed the impugned order .
6. So far as argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the suit is not maintainable or the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction, the appellant can agitate all these grounds before the learned trial Court.
7. For what has been discussed above, instant appeal as well as connected appeals i.e. F.A.O No. 39623/2020 and F.A.O No. 39743/2020 are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. No order as to costs.