M/S CUBES ENTERTAINMENTS vs BIG TREE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TH
MONDAY, THE 14 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026/23RD BHADRA, 1948
OP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2026 IN UNNUMB.IA 4/2026
IN UNNUMBERED O.S NO. OF 2026 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF:
M/S CUBES ENTERTAINMENTS
2ND FLOOR, ARDRA, DOOR NO.27/46 B1,
CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR. P.O., ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, NANDU
RAJEEV., PIN - 682033
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.SUKESH ROY
SMT.A.R.DIVYA
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS:
1 BIG TREE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
GROUND FLOOR, WAJEDA HOUSE, GULMOHAR CROSS
ROAD NO 7, OPERATES UNDER THE BRAND NAME
BOOKMYSHOW, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR /
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE JUHU SCHEME, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA - 400049
2 JOHN DOES / ASHOK KUMARS,
C/O. BIG TREE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,
GROUND FLOOR, WAJEDA HOUSE, GULMOHAR CROSS
ROAD NO: 7, JUHU SCHEME, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
2
400 049.(OPERATES AS UNIDENTIFIED DIGITAL
ACTORS UNDER THE ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT
TICKETING PLATFORM BOOK MY SHOW)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
3
“C.R”
EASWARAN S., J
--------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
-------------------------------
th
Dated this the 14 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
st
in the platform of the 1 defendant by unknown persons.
In such circumstances, placing reliance on the various
judgments of the High Courts including this Court, the
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
4
plaintiff approached the court by contending that the
review of the film “Kattalan” posted in the platform of
st
the 1 defendant must be removed, so as to enable them
to protect their rights. Other reliefs were also sought for.
nd
When the suit was moved, the 2 defendant was arrayed
as ‘John Doe’, because the plaintiff was not aware of the
exact identity of the persons, who had posted the review
st
in the platform of the 1 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.
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
5
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
nd
address of ‘John Doe-2 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
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
6
nd
in a suit, where the 2 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.
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
7
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
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.
10. It must be remembered that in cases of ‘John Doe’
/Ashok Kumars 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
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
8
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
st
numerous reviews in the 1 defendant platform as it is
completely masked and unknown.
11. Moreover, the trial court ought to have kept in
mind that procedural rules under Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 are the handmaidens of justice and
should not be used as technical obstructions to deny
substantive justice. Further, the trial court could have
obtained an undertaking to implead the actual person
who posted the review once his identity is revealed. In
such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is required to be invoked to render substantive justice
and correct the procedural infirmity committed by the
Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam.
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
9
Accordingly, the original petition is allowed by
setting aside Ext.P4 order. The Principal Munsiff Court,
Ernkulam, is directed to number the suit on the date of
production of certified copy of this judgment and
proceed to consider the interlocutory application
forthwith.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
AMR
CNR : KLHC010679142026
2026:KER:69867
O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
10
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN THE
UNNUMBERED O.S. BY THE HON’BLE
MUNSIFF’S COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4/2026
ALONG WITH ITS SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
IN EXHIBIT P1 CASE DATED 3/6/2026
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION
MEMORANDUM IN EXHIBIT P1 CASE DATED
3/6/2026
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN
I.A NO.4/2026 DATED 05/06/2026 PASSED
BY THE HON’BLE MUNSIFF’S COURT,
ERNAKULAM.