Virtually Impossible To Comply With Mandate Of Order VI Rule 14A CPC In John Doe Cases; Courts Must Adopt Progressive Approach: Kerala High Court
The petition before the Kerala High Court was filed by the plaintiff in a suit for injunction initiated as ‘John Doe’ proceedings.
Justice Easwaran S., Kerala High Court
While directing the Principal Munsiff Court to number a suit, the Kerala High Court has held that it is virtually impossible to comply with the mandates of Order VI Rule 14A of CPC (Code of Civil Procedure) in cases of ‘John Doe’ /Ashok Kumar proceedings, and the Courts must adopt a progressive approach while entertaining the suits where ‘John Doe’ orders are sought.
The petition before the High Court was filed by the plaintiff in a suit for injunction initiated as ‘John Doe’ proceedings. The petitioner laid a challenge to the refusal on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, to number the suit on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with Order VI and Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
The Single Bench of Justice Easwaran S. held, “The reference to the above precedents is only to indicate that the concept of ‘John Doe’ litigation is expanding rapidly. In such a scenario, the courts must adopt a progressive approach while entertaining the suits where ‘John Doe’ orders are sought for and should not allow itself to be tied down procedural requirements.”
“It must be remembered that in cases of ‘John Doe’ /Ashok Kumar proceedings, it is virtually impossible to comply with the mandates of Order VI Rule 14A of CPC. The insistence on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, to the petitioner/ plaintiff to comply with the procedure under Order VI Rule 14A of CPC would render the suit ineffective as it is impossible for the plaintiff to get the exact details of the persons, who had posted the numerous reviews in the 1st defendant platform as it is completely masked and unknown”, it added.
Advocate T. Sukesh Roy represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The plaintiff had approached the Court by contending that the review of the film “Kattalan” posted on the platform of the first defendant must be removed, so as to enable them to protect their rights. Other reliefs were also sought. When the suit was moved, the second defendant was arrayed as ‘John Doe’, because the plaintiff was not aware of the exact identity of the persons who had posted the review on the platform of the first defendant. The Principal Munsiff Court refused to number the suit, which led to the petitioner filing an application seeking exemption from complying with the provisions of Order VI Rule 14A and Order VII Rule 1(c) of the CPC. This application was rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case and the impugned order, the Bench held that the insistence on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court to correct the physical address of ‘John Doe-2nd defendant’ under Order VI Rule 14A of CPC created a procedural paradox and defeated the very purpose of ‘John Doe’ jurisprudence.
“While Order VI Rule 14A of CPC mandates that the particulars of the defendants be included for the purpose of issuing summons, it is impossible to comply with the provisions in a suit, where the 2nd defendant is arrayed as ‘John Doe’/Ashok Kumar”, it stated.
According to the Bench, the Principal Munsiff Court was completely at a loss in not appreciating the requirement of the plaintiff and also the urgency expressed in the suit. “The procedural conflict between Order VI Rule 14A of CPC and the ‘John Doe’ exemption was not considered in its correct perspective”, it added.
Highlighting how the ‘John Doe’ litigation is expanding rapidly, the Bench noted that it was not possible for the plaintiff to get the exact details of the persons who had posted the numerous reviews, as it was completely masked, and thus the insistence on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court on the petitioner/ plaintiff to comply with the procedure under Order VI Rule 14A of CPC would render the suit ineffective. The Bench held that the Trial Court could obtain an undertaking to implead the actual person who posted the review once his identity is revealed.
Thus, allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned order, the Bench directed the Principal Munsiff Court to number the suit on the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment and proceed to consider the interlocutory application forthwith.
Cause Title: M/S Cubes Entertainments v. Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:69867)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates T. Sukesh Roy, A.R. Divya