OA.No.817 of 2022

OA.No.817 of 2022

OA.No.871 of 2023

in

C.S.No.273 of 2022

Reserved on

16.06.2023

Delivered on

26.06.2023

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

Heard Mr.K.Ravi, learned Senior counsel appearing for

M/s.Rugan & Arya for the applicants and Mr.P.Anandan, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. In these applications the plaintiffs have sought for interim

injunction from interfering with his possession without due process of

law and for a direction to the concerned Inspector of Police to offer

adequate protection to the plaintiff and the suit schedule properties B, C,

D & E in particular. The plaintiff had impleaded a known party as the

first defendant and also seeks a John Doe order.

3. When the application for injunction was taken, this court had

granted an injunction for a period of three weeks and also permitted the

applicant to take private notice and also to effect paper publications.

When the applications were taken for further hearing, an advocate had

entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent/defendant and

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

OA.No.817 of 2022

sought time to file his Vakalath and counter in the applications. However

during the next date of hearing, the advocate had represented that the

first respondent had not further instructed to act on his behalf. Recording

the same, this court had directed issuance of fresh notice to the first

respondent to be served on him. However in the interregnum, there was a

representation from the applicants in A.No.2996 0f 2023 seeking to

intervene themselves as necessary parties to the suit. The said application

had been disposed of in view of the withdrawal and transfer of

O.S.No.13660 of 2010.

4. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent had been

represented by an advocate before this court on 24-01-2023. This would

mean that the first respondent is aware of the proceedings before this

Court, but however for the best reasons he is avoiding appearance before

this Court. As regards the second respondent the applicant seeks John

Doe order.

5. The concept of an John Doe order is to provide pre-infringement

injunction & is granted in the intellectual property rights of the creator of

an artistic work against unknown nameless infringers who have infringed

the copyrights of the original owner or anyone attempting to do so since

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

OA.No.817 of 2022

till such time the defendants are identified. I am not able to place hands

on any previous decision where the concept of a John Doe order has been

applied to the suits such as the one under consideration. The present suit

is for a permanent injunction against named and unnamed persons from

interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit properties by

applicant/plaintiff. In my view if a John Doe order is issued in such

cases, there could be the possibility of unscrupulous persons in invoking

the said principles to obtain an order as against the original

owners/occupiers. This will only lead to further litigations. This Court

has also to guard itself from entertaining such litigations. Hence I am

afraid that the principle of John Doe order could be extended to this

litigation. Since I have come to the conclusion that the first respondent is

very much aware of the proceedings before this Court and that he had

not made any attempt to enter his appearance till date, the order of

injunction made by this Court on 02-01-2023, is made absolute as

against him.

7. As regards the application seeking protection, I am of the

opinion that the same could be ordered subject to payment of costs by

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

OA.No.817 of 2022

the applicant, since the respondent had not appeared before this Court to

counter the allegations made by the applicant. Further granting such a

relief would not only protect the property but also the interest of t