THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026

Dated this the 14th day of September, 2026

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff in a suit for injunction initiated as ‘John Doe’ proceedings, has come up with the present original petition, challenging the refusal on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, to number the suit on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with Order VI and Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).

2. In the present suit, the grievance of the petitioner is read, it is directed against the review posted in the platform of the 1st defendant by unknown persons. In such circumstances, placing reliance on the various judgments of the High Courts including this Court, the plaintiff approached the court by contending that the review of the film “Kattalan” posted in the platform of the 1st defendant must be removed, so as to enable them to protect their rights. Other reliefs were also sought for. When the suit was moved, the 2nd defendant was arrayed as ‘John Doe’, because the plaintiff was not aware of the exact identity of the persons, who had posted the review in the platform of the 1st defendant. The Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, refused to number the suit as evident from the endorsement made on the back of Ext.P1 suit. This 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 by Ext.P4 order, which is impugned in this original petition.

3. Heard Shri.T.Sukesh Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

4. The question before this Court is whether the refusal on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, to number the suit could be sustained or not. The Munsiff Court, appears to have taken a stand that unless Order VI Rule 14A of CPC is complied with, the suit cannot be numbered. Order VI Rule 14A of CPC reads as under:-

14-A. Address for service of notice.―(1)Every pleading, when filed by a party, shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form, signed as provided in rule 14, regarding the address of the party.

5. The insistence on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, to correct the physical address of ‘John Doe-2nd defendant’ under Order VI Rule 14A of CPC creates a procedural paradox and it defeats 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 Kumars..

6. A perusal of Ext.P4 order shows that the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, was completely at remiss 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.

7. The concept of ‘John Doe’ proceedings were introduced to India for the first time by the Delhi High Court in Taj television v. Rajan Mandal [(2003) FSR 22] where the Delhi High Court restrained unlicensed cable operators from unlawfully broadcasting the 2002 FIFA World Cup who were alleged to be illegally transmitting the content exclusively belonging to the plaintiff’s channel.

8. The concept was further expanded by the court in E.S.P.N Software India Pvt Ltd. v. Tudu Enterprises and ors {C.S.(O.S) No 384/2011}. Further in UTV software communications ltd and Ors v. 1337X.To .Ors [(2019) SCC Online del 8002] the Delhi High Court discussed in detail the test to be adopted while issuing ‘John doe’ orders.

9. 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 adop