Back
Rules Address Not Required For Suits Against
Justice Easwaran S. of the has delivered a significant ruling on the procedural flexibility required in proceedings, holding that plaintiffs cannot be forced to provide addresses for unknown defendants under .
The court allowed a petition by , the production company behind the Malayalam film Kattalan (starring Antony Varghese, released in May 2026), which had sought removal of allegedly defamatory or harmful reviews posted on the platform. Since the identities of the reviewers were unknown, the company filed a suit, naming the second defendant as "/Ashok Kumars". However, the , refused to number the suit, insisting that the plaintiff comply with Order VI Rule 14A CPC, which mandates providing the address of every defendant for service of notice.
A
The Munsiff court also dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking exemption from this requirement, leading to approach the High Court under . The petitioner argued that demanding an address for an unknown person creates a "" and defeats the very purpose of jurisprudence, which is designed to protect rights against unidentified infringers.
Justice Easwaran S. observed that while Order VI Rule 14A serves the legitimate purpose of facilitating summons, it cannot be mechanically applied in cases where the defendant's identity is inherently unknown.
"The insistence on the part of the
, to correct the physical address of '
-2nd defendant' under Order VI Rule 14A of CPC creates a
and it defeats the very purpose of '
' jurisprudence,"
the court noted.
The Expanding Scope of Litigation
Tracing the evolution of orders in India, the High Court referred to the landmark decision in Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal (2003), where the first introduced the concept to restrain unlicensed cable operators. It further noted that in UTV Software Communications Ltd v. 1337X.To (2019), the laid down detailed tests for issuing such orders. The emphasised that courts must adopt a progressive approach and not allow procedural technicalities to stand in the way of .
"The trial court ought to have kept in mind that procedural rules under
are the
and should not be used as technical obstructions to deny
,"
the judgment read.
Alternative Safeguards Suggested
Rather than insisting on an impossible requirement, the High Court suggested that the trial court could have obtained an undertaking from the plaintiff to implead the actual persons once their identities are revealed through discovery or other means. This pragmatic approach balances the need for procedural compliance with the realities of anonymous online activity.
The Verdict
Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court directed the , to number the suit immediately upon production of the certified copy of this judgment and to proceed with the interlocutory application without delay. The ruling reinforces the principle that in cases involving unknown defendants, strict adherence to address requirements cannot be enforced, ensuring that proceedings remain an effective tool against anonymous wrongdoers in the digital age.
Case Title: v. and Anr. Case No: O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026 Citation: 2026:KER:69867
