This story is from January 4, 2011

High court refuses permission to amend Periyar copyright plea

The Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, which has so far been unsuccessfully claiming copyright over EVR Periyar’s writings, has yet again failed to get the Madras high court nod to amend a suit it filed to include Periyar’s speeches and publications as well.
High court refuses permission to amend Periyar copyright plea
CHENNAI: The Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, which has so far been unsuccessfully claiming copyright over EVR Periyar’s writings, has yet again failed to get the Madras high court nod to amend a suit it filed to include Periyar’s speeches and publications as well.
Justice T Mathivanan, rejecting the plea to amend the petition, said it would prejudice the Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (PDK) and its general secretary K Ramakrishnan, who are the respondents."The amendments, which are sought to be made at the belated stage, cannot be allowed as it may change the nature of the defence of the respondent," he said.
It all started a couple of years ago when the Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution moved the high court to restrain the PDK from publishing Periyar’s writings published in the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) mouthpiece ‘Kudiyarasu’ between 1925 and 1949. After a single judge and a division bench dismissed the petition and appeal, the Supreme Court too refused to intervene on November 26, 2010. In its order, the apex court held that the writings of Periyar had come to the public domain 25 years after his death.
The present petition sought to amend the prayer in the original petition so as to include Periyar’s articles, speeches and other manuscript compilations. Noting that earlier orders in the matter would not restrict amendment of the petition, senior counsel A Thiagarajan said it was necessitated because the PDK had raised some new facts in its written statement.
Opposing any amendment, advocate S Duraisamy, representing the PDK and Ramakrishnan, said amendment could be made only for real controversy and not for written statements. Concurring with Duraisamy’s submissions, Justice Mathivanan said:"This court is of the considered view that definitely the proposed amendment would seriously affect the rights of the respondents (PDK and Ramakrishnan)."
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA