High Court Affirms Order Restraining Kolkata-Based Publisher From Selling Late Author Narayan Debnath's Works
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a trial court's Court's interim injunction order restraining Kolkata-based publishing house Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd from printing, publishing, selling, or distributing the literary and artistic works of the late eminent author and cartoonist Narayan Debnath till February 9.
In doing so the court said that the author's widow as executor of Debnath's Will and plaintiff no. 2 i.e., their son as legatee of the Will are completely entitled to maintain the suit before the trial court, even before Probate is granted under Indian Succession Act.
The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed,
"Taking into consideration such aspects of the matter, we do not find any reason to substitute our alternative views, even if possible to be taken, for that of the learned trial Judge, since there was no error, either of law or on fact, in the impugned order and the learned trial Judge adopted one of the possible views on the basis of the averments made in the injunction application and the plaint".
The dispute arose from a suit instituted by Narayan Debnath's widow, acting as executrix of his will and one of his sons, claiming that the publisher continued to exploit the author's works beyond the licence period granted under a 2012 agreement.
According to the respondent/plaintiff, the agreement was valid for only two years, and the continued publication thereafter constituted copyright infringement. The plaintiffs claimed rights over the copyright based on the said Will executed by the late author.
The Trial Court issued an ad-interim injunction restraining Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd from printing, publishing, selling, or distributing the literary and artistic works, through an online portal, e-commerce or some other mode, of the late eminent author and cartoonist Narayan Debnath until February 9, 2026.
On the other hand, the publisher/appellants argued that the injunction was obtained at the eleventh hour, just one day before the commencement of a major book fair scheduled for January 22, 2026, thereby causing irreparable commercial loss.
The appellant also highlighted another commercial suit of 2021 filed by a third-party publisher alleging similar infringement, in which interim injunction was granted but then was later vacated.
The appellant claimed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged infringement since 2021 and yet they waited til 2026 to file the present suit. It was argued that this delay defeated equity and disentitled plaintiffs from seeking urgent injunctive relief.
Further, it was argued that neither the executrix nor the legatee under the Will has locus standi to institute proceedings without obtaining probate, relying on Section 213 and 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The bench rejected the contention regarding maintainability, observing that copyright infringement constitutes a continuing cause of action and therefore neither limitation nor the bar under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC would apply.
"In case of infringement of a copyright, the cause of action is continuing in nature and arises de die in diem and as such, limitation arises day to day, since the cause of action is a fresh cause of action each succeeding day/moment".
Further, the bench rejected the objection regarding the lack of locus standi of the suit by the respondents, observing,
"on a harmonious reading of Sections 211 and 227, there cannot be any other mode of interpretation but that even in areas where Section 213 operates, the executor, for the limited purpose of protecting the property, is fully entitled to maintain suits and/or defend litigations and/or take other action for the said purpose, which would then be construed to be an“intermediate act” within the contemplation of Section 227 and be regularized/validated upon the grant of probate".
Further, the court noted that although the plaintiffs do not represent the entire body of heirs, the suit was maintainable in both the avatars of the plaintiffs - as executor/legatee and as heirs of the deceased testator.
Rejecting the contention that the suit was barred by Order 9 Rule 9, the court held, "In case of infringement of a copyright, the cause of action is continuing in nature and arises de die in diem and as such, limitation arises day to day, since the cause of action is a fresh cause of action each succeeding day/moment".
The bench therefore rejected the appeal and connected application.
Case Title: Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd v Archana Debnath [2026:CHC-AS:96-DB]