Defendant's use of a portion of the Plaintiff's production? Whether the acts of the Defendant were unconstitutional, high-handed and deliberate and calculated to benefit the Defendant's agenda at the expense or in blatant disregard of the Plaintiff's interests, feelings and concerns? Finally whether the Defendant's actions amounted to infringement of the Plaintiff‘s copyright? As far as there are factual controversies asserted by the Defendant but contested by the Plaintiff is concerned, it was agreed as follows: whether unsubstantial portion of the Plaintiffs work was used? Whether the same was used for teaching and educational purposes and therefore amounted to fair use? Whether the use of the said work did not in any way prejudice the honour and reputation of the Plaintiff, but rather strengthens and reinforces her work? Agreed issues for trial are as follows: 1. Whether the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff's copyright? 2. Whether the Defendant's actions fall within the fair use exception? 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought? Issue number one proceeds from the assumption that there is an identified work of the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff enjoys copyright. Secondly issue number two also proceeds from the assumption that there is a work of the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff enjoys copyright and the issue is whether the Defendant's use amounted to fair use. Thirdly there is an underlying assumption that the Defendant used the Plaintiff‘s works to which work the Plaintiff enjoys copyright. However as a preliminary point the Defendant‘s Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff did not have a copyright and secondly that it was commissioned work by the British Council. Thirdly the Plaintiff is the co-author of the works. The Plaintiff's Counsel strongly contested the Defendant's submissions on the ground that it is a departure from their written statement of defence and the scheduling memorandum under the hand of Counsels and offended Order 6 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is necessary to start with the preliminary point of law which is whether part of the Defendant's submissions in reply to the Plaintiff‘s submissions in support of the claim is a departure from the pleadings. Starting with the provisions of Order 6 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules it provides as follows: "No pleading shall, not being a petition or application, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleading of the party pleading that pleading." The above provision is not strictly about evidence but about subsequent pleadings. It is however case law which is consistent with Order 6 generally that provides that a party cannot introduce evidence inconsistent with the previous pleading or defence. A pleading has been defined as a plan for an action or a defence and it provides notice to the other side of what the claim is or what the defence is going to be. There are several rules that support the contention that a pleading must contain the necessary averments to give sufficient notice to the other side as to the