ORDER

IA No.8669/2019 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) No.335/2019, IA No.8670/2019 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) & IA No.8671/2019 (under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC)

3. Inspite of passover, the arguing counsel is not available.

4. Though the filing counsel has sought to argue the matter but in my opinion, the plaint as drafted is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

5. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against as many as 98 defendants; however the defendants no.37 to 98 are `John Doe' defendants. In my opinion, even if a `John Doe' order is sought, there is no need to implead `John Doe' repeatedly, adding to the bulk of the plaint; one `John Doe' is sufficient. Moreover, there is no reason why the plaintiff has stopped at 98 and not completed a century of defendants!

6. The plaintiff, as per averments in the plaint, has claimed the relief of damages, only from defendant, no.18 Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. which is shown to be at Mumbai. There is no reason for the plaintiff to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court against defendant no.18 situated at Mumbai.

7. Jurisdiction of