HC allows script writer to file fresh plagiarism suit against

The Madras High Court on Tuesday allowed a Tamil film script writer to file a fresh suit before an appropriate court over plagiarism charges against actor Vijay-starrer 'Bigil', which is set for Diwali release.

Justice R Suresh Kumar set aside the part of the recent order by an assistant city civil court disallowing the petitioner (plaintiff before the lower court) K P Selvah the liberty to file the fresh suit for alleged infringement of copyright.

"Failure to give such a liberty and rejection of the plea of the plaintiff, in the impugned order, is nothing but an erroneous exercise of power by the trial court," the judge said allowing a civil revision petition by Selvah.

The civil judge had allowed a plea by Selvah to withdraw the suit on grounds that the court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter since it related to alleged infringement of copyright.

However, he did not grant permission sought for filing a fresh suit before the appropriate forum.

Challenging this, the script writer filed the revision petition.

Claiming that the story of "Bigil" resembled his 256-page script which he had duly registered with the South Indian Film Writers Association, he had in his suit before the civil court sought to restrain Director and Write Atlee and the AGS Entertainment, which produced the film, from releasing it.

Bigil is a sports action film written and directed by Atlee and produced by Kalpathi S Aghoram under the banner AGS Entertainment. It stars Vijay and Nayanthara in leading roles while A R Rahman has scored the music.

Refusing to go into the merits of the matter, Justice Suresh Kumar said what required to be decided was whether the revision plea was maintainable and if the trial court while allowing withdrawal of the suit can deny permission to institute a fresh litigation on the same set of facts before the appropriate forum.

Citing relevant rules under the Civil Procedure Code (CrPC), the Judge said the revision was maintainable and held that the trial court ought to have permitted institution of a fresh suit.