Universal City Studios Llc. & Ors. vs 123Movieshub.Tc & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~O-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010074222022
+ CS(COMM) 116/2022 & I.A. 2717/2022
Date of Decision: 07.10.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Raghav Goyal, Adv.
versus
123MOVIESHUB.TC & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SPC for UoI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. On 04.05.2026, learned counsel for the plaintiffs had sought and was
granted four weeks time to file an appropriate application seeking summary
judgment against the defendants. No such application has been filed.
Learned counsel, however, submits that the suit is ripe for final adjudication
on the basis of the pleadings and the documents on record, and that the
plaintiffs need not be relegated to the stage of recording oral evidence in
view of the consistent approach adopted by this Court in a number of suits
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
filed by some of the plaintiffs themselves against similarly placed rogue
websites, including Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
https://tamilrockers.ws & Ors. , CS(COMM) 369/2019.
2. Two questions, therefore, arise for consideration: firstly , whether this
Court can pass a summary judgment in the absence of an application under
Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC]; and secondly ,
whether, in the facts of the present case, the plaintiffs are required to lead
oral evidence before the suit can be decreed.
3. The present suit has been instituted by six plaintiffs, namely,
Universal City Studios LLC. (plaintiff no. 1), Warner Bros. Entertainment
Inc. (plaintiff no. 2), Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (plaintiff no. 3),
Netflix Studios, LLC (plaintiff no. 4), Paramount Pictures Corporation
(plaintiff no. 5) and Disney Enterprises, Inc. (plaintiff no. 6). They are
companies incorporated in the United States of America and are engaged in
the creation, production and distribution of motion pictures and other audio-
visual content. The suit has been instituted through Mr. Vishal Ahuja, the
authorised signatory of each of the plaintiffs, under Special Powers of
Attorney dated 21.05.2019.
4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their films are ‘ cinematograph films‟
within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the Act), that
they are entitled to protection in India by virtue of Sections 5, 13 and 40 of
the Act, and that the plaintiffs are the authors, first owners or owners of
copyright in such works under Section 17 of the Act. They, therefore, claim
the exclusive rights enumerated in Section 14(d) of the Act, including the
right to make a copy of the film and to communicate it to the public. An
illustrative list of the works is given in paragraph 16 of the plaint, which
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
includes, among others, Straight Outta Compton , Aquaman , Wonder
Woman , Friends , Miracles from Heaven , Stranger Things , Transformers:
Age of Extinction , Mulan and Finding Dory.
5. Defendant nos. 1 to 34 are websites which, according to the plaintiffs,
host, stream and make available the plaintiffs’ works for viewing and
download, free of cost and without any licence. Several of them operate
through more than one domain; for instance, defendant no. 1 operates
through ten domains and defendant no. 2 through 5 domains under the
names ‘123movies’ ‘putlocker ’, respectively. Defendant nos. 35 to 43 are
Internet Service Providers (ISPs), defendant no. 44 is the Department of
Telecommunications (DoT) and defendant no. 45 is the Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). Defendant no. 46 has
been arrayed as ‘Ashok Kumar’ to cover unknown domains and website
operators that may be discovered during the proceedings.
LIST OF WEBSITES
S.No. DomainName URL IP Address
DefendantNo.1
https://ww5.123movieshub.tc
1. 123movieshub.tc 172.64.206.23
172.64.207.23
https://www4.123moviesfree4u.co
2. 123moviesfree4u.com
172.67.166.56
m
104.21.82.249
3. 0123movie.ru https://0123movie.ru 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
4. 123movieshindi.net https://123movieshindi.net 104.21.48.56
172.67.178.208
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
5. 123movieshindi.com http://123movieshindi.com 172.67.168.166
104.21.94.199
6. 1-23movies.cc https://w1.1-23movies.cc 104.21.13.82
172.67.198.212
7. 123tv.movie https://123tv.movie 172.67.214.2
104.21.93.188
8. 123moviesh.to https://123moviesh.to 104.21.70.96
172.67.222.123
9. 123movie.sh https://ww33.123movie.sh 172.67.154.37
104.21.4.147
10. w-123movies.club http://w-123movies.club 104.21.69.100
172.67.207.102
DefendantNo.2
11. putlocker-website.com http://putlocker-website.com 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
https://ww2.putlockernew.site
12. putlockernew.site 104.31.16.8
104.31.16.121
13. putlocker.ps https://putlocker.ps 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
14. putlockers.llc https://putlockers.llc 104.21.90.142
172.67.157.191
15. putlocker.gg https://putlocker.gg 172.67.189.149
104.21.89.155
DefendantNo.3
16. 0gomovies.ws https://0gomovies.ws 172.67.210.93
104.21.69.164
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
17. poppygreens.com https://poppygreens.com 172.67.167.169
104.21.42.228
DefendantNo.4
18. 1movieshd.com https://1movieshd.com 104.21.54.127
172.67.138.179
DefendantNo.5
19. 2gomovies.ws https://2gomovies.ws 194.145.208.168
DefendantNo.6
20. 2kmovie.cc https://2kmovie.cc 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
DefendantNo.7
21. 4filmyzilla.bar https://ww2.4filmyzilla.bar 104.21.49.197
172.67.166.204
DefendantNo.8
22. bolly2tolly.eu https://www.bolly2tolly.eu 172.67.223.114
104.21.91.151
23. oyomovies.com http://oyomovies.com 104.21.21.10
172.67.195.168
24. bolly2tolly.net https://www.bolly2tolly.net 104.21.29.70
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
172.67.148.145
DefendantNo.9
25. fboxtv.com https://fboxtv.com 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
DefendantNo.10
26. filmyhit.pink https://filmyhit.pink 104.21.51.33
172.67.220.10
27. filmyhit.media https://filmyhit.media 104.21.63.32
172.67.142.173
28. filmy.link http://filmy.link 172.67.214.20
104.21.42.249
DefendantNo.11
29. flixhq.tv https://flixhq.tv 172.67.164.103
104.21.50.169
DefendantNo.12
30. fmovies.style https://fmovies.style 172.67.193.95
104.21.76.110
DefendantNo.13
31. freemoviesfull.com https://www1.freemoviesfull.com 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
DefendantNo.14
32. gomoviefree.sc https://gomoviefree.sc 172.67.178.94
104.21.91.192
DefendantNo.15
33. goojara.to https://www.goojara.to 172.67.143.39
104.21.46.235
DefendantNo.16
34. hdtoday.tv https://hdtoday.tv 172.67.151.107
104.21.88.167
DefendantNo.17
35. jexmovie.com https://jexmovie.com 172.67.191.63
104.21.33.184
DefendantNo.18
36. kdramahood.com https://kdramahood.com 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
DefendantNo.19
https://www.moviecrumbs.net
37. moviecrumbs.net 104.21.23.223
172.67.213.248
DefendantNo.20
38. moviesyify.online https://moviesyify.online 104.21.41.62
172.67.189.122
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
DefendantNo.21
39. openloadflix.com http://openloadflix.com 172.67.154.80
104.21.64.186
DefendantNo.22
40. openloadmov.net https://openloadmov.net 104.21.72.7
172.67.218.89
104.21.24.111
DefendantNo.23
https://www.pagalmovies.digital
41. pagalmovies.digital 172.67.190.54
104.21.10.138
https://www.pagalmovies.today
42. pagalmovies.today 172.67.196.29
104.21.76.144
43. pagalmovies.art http://pagalmovies.art 104.21.37.94
172.67.206.218
DefendantNo.24
44. playdesi.net https://playdesi.net 104.21.96.100
172.67.176.147
45. playdesi.tv https://playdesi.tv 104.21.28.9
172.67.170.34
DefendantNo.25
46. seriestv.watch https://seriestv.watch 162.159.137.85
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
162.159.138.85
DefendantNo.26
47. spacemov.site https://spacemov.site 104.21.10.30
172.67.189.223
48. spacemov.ws http://spacemov.ws 104.31.16.6
104.31.16.123
DefendantNo.27
49. tvshows88.com https://tvshows88.com 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
DefendantNo.28
50. watchfilm.net https://ww11.watchfilm.net 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
DefendantNo.29
51. watchmovieshd.ru https://watchmovieshd.ru 162.159.137.85
162.159.138.85
DefendantNo.30
52. watchseries.ma https://watchseries.ma 104.21.5.100
172.67.154.116
DefendantNo.31
53. watchserieshd.stream https://watchserieshd.stream 172.67.162.131
104.21.42.144
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
DefendantNo.32
54. Watchseriesstream
https://watchseriesstream.com 104.21.65.175
.com
104.21.64.186
DefendantNo.33
55. 172.67.194.20
https://watchtheoffice.cc
watchtheoffice.cc
104.21.20.189
DefendantNo.34
56. 172.64.130.9
https://xemovie.com
xemovie.com
172.64.131.9
6. The plaintiffs have sought the following reliefs:
“i. Issue an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the
Defendant Nos. 1-34 (and any such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric
website which appears to be associated with any of the Defendant
Websites based on its name, branding or the identity of its operator, or
discovered to provide additional means of accessing, the Defendant
Websites, and other domains/domain along with their subdomains and
subdirectories, owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to
have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiffs' exclusive rights), its
owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others
in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone
claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner hosting, streaming,
reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or
communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their websites,
through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph
work/content/programme/ show m relation to which Plaintiffs have
copyright.
ii. Issue an order and decree directing the Defendant Nos. 35-43, their
directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees,
and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their
behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to block access to the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
Defendant Nos. 1-34 websites identified by the Plaintiffs in the instant suit
(and any such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which appears
to be associated with any of the Defendant Websites based on its name,
branding or the identity of its operator, or discovered to provide
additional means of accessing, the Defendant Website, and other
domains/domain along with their subdomains and subdirectories,
owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been
engaging in infringing the Plaintiffs' exclusive rights),
iii. Issue an order directing the Defendant Nos. 44 and 45, to issue a
notification calling upon the various internet and telecom service
providers registered under it to block access to the Defendant Nos. 1-34
websites identified by the Plaintiffs in the instant suit (and any such other
mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which appears to be associated with
any of the Defendant Websites based on its name, branding or the identity
of its operator, or discovered to provide additional means of accessing, the
Defendant Websites, and other domains/domain along with their
subdomains and subdirectories, owners/website operators/entities which
are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiffs' exclusive
rights);
iv. Issue an order directing the Domain Name Registrars of the Defendant
Websites identified by the Plaintiffs in the Plaint to disclose the contact
details and other details about the owner of the said websites, and other
such relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;
v. Pass any other Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of
the Plaintiff.
It is prayed accordingly”
7. The suit was first listed on 21.02.2022. On that date, the Court noticed
that the plaintiffs are distinct corporate entities whose works are not
identical, and that their joinder in one suit did not strictly satisfy Order I
Rule 1 CPC. The Court, however, declined to split the suit in view of Order
I Rule 2 CPC, the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata v.
1
Chandi Prasad Sikaria, and the fact that separate court fees had been paid
by each plaintiff. Paragraph 18 of the order reads as under:
“18. It is for that reason alone that the court is inclined not to direct the
splitting up of this particular suit as separate suits to be numbered as
such, also in the light of the fact that separate court fees has been paid.
1
(2007) 2 SCC 551.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
But it is not a practice that can be encouraged.”
8. By the same order, this Court granted ex parte interim directions.
Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the order dated 21.02.2022 read as under:
“25. The defendants No.1 to 34 have been created to upload pirated
movies, TV programmes etc. These websites are anonymous in nature. The
information provided in the public domain regarding the owners of the
websites is inherently incorrect or protected behind the veil of secrecy and
hidden behind private domain services offered by various domain name
Registrars. Therefore, there is force in the contention of the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs that it is virtually impossible to bring the owners
of these websites before the court and to ensure that the orders are
complied with. Yet there is no gainsaying that these websites are actively
streaming Motion pictures and television content of the plaintiffs through
illegal means. The legal notices issued to them have evoked no response.
Such illegal websites made with the primary and sole objective to pirate
copyrighted works for their own commercial benefits cannot be permitted
to continue doing so, to await the disposal of the suit. Therefore, the
defendants No.35 to 43 are directed to block access to these websites as
mentioned below :
xxx
26. They shall do so within 24 hours of the receipt of the order. The
defendants No.44 and 45 are directed to issue notifications calling upon
the telecom service providers registered under them to disable access into
India ofthewebsites ofdefendantsNo.1 to 34 within36hours ofthereceipt
ofthe order.
9. The said interim order has been duly complied with. Defendant nos. 47 to 75,
which are also websites, were subsequently impleaded on applications filed by the
plaintiffs, and the interim directions were extended to them.
10. Except the Union of India, which is a non-contesting party, none of the other
defendants is represented despite service. No written statement has been filed on
behalf of any of the defendant websites. The plaintiffs are not seeking any
substantive relief against the Union of India or against defendant nos. 35 to 43, who
have been arrayed only to ensure compliance with the decree. The plaintiffs have
also not pressed the relief of damages and costs.
11. Order XIIIA CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes of a specified value,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
was introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016]) Rules 1 to 3
thereof read as under:
“1. Scope of and classes of suits to which this Order applies.-(1) This Order sets
out the procedure by which Courts may decide a claim pertaining to any
Commercial Dispute without recording oral evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this Order, the word "claim" shall include-
(a) part of a claim;
(b) any particular question on which the claim (whether in whole or in part)
depends; or
(c) a counterclaim, as the case may be.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, an application for summary judgment
under this Order shall not be made in a suit in respect of any Commercial Dispute
that is originally filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII.
2. Stage for application for summary judgment. An applicant may apply for
summary judgment at any time after summons has been served on the defendant:
Provided that, no application for summary judgment may be made by such
applicant after the Court has framed the issues in respect of the suit.
3. Grounds for summary judgment.- The Court may give a summary judgment
against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim if it considers that--
(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant
has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of
before recording of oral evidence.”
12. Order XIIIA CPC is framed around an application. Rule 2 speaks of the stage
at which an applicant may apply, and Rule 4 prescribes what the application and the
reply must contain. Relying on this scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in
2
Bright Enterprises Private Ltd. v. MJ Bizcraft LLP, held as under:
“21. ... Even if we were to accept, which we do not, the argument of the respondents
that the Court had suo moto powers to deliver summary judgment without there
being any application, those powers also would have to be exercised during this
window, that is, after service of summons on the defendant and prior to framing of
issues. In addition to this, we also reiterate that, in our view, a summary judgment
under Order XIIIA CPC is not permissible without there being an appropriate
application for summary judgment. ...
xxx xxx xxx
23. From the provisions laid out in Order XIIIA, it is evident that the proceedings
before Court are adversarial in nature and not inquisitorial. It follows, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
2
2017 SCC OnLine Del 6394.
that summary judgment under Order XIIIA cannot be rendered in the absence of an
adversary and merely upon the inquisition by the Court. The Court is never an
adversary in a dispute between parties. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge has
not considered the provisions of Order XIIIA CPC in this light.
24. In view of the discussion above, since no summons had been issued and
obviously no application had been filed by the respondents for a summary
judgment, the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the suit invoking the
provisions of Order XIIIA CPC.”
13. The decision in Bright Enterprises (supra) was rendered in a case where the
learned Single Judge had dismissed a suit at the admission stage itself, without even
issuing summons to the defendants, and partly on the basis of the Judge’s own
recollection and research. The plaintiffs there had no notice that their claim was
being tested summarily. The concern of the Division Bench was that a party cannot
be visited with a summary judgment without notice and in the absence of an
adversary.
14. After that decision, this Court, in exercise of the powers under Section 7 of
the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and Section 129 CPC, notified the Delhi High Court
Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (IPD Rules) on 24.02.2022. The
present suit, being one for infringement of copyright over the internet, is an IPR
subject matter within Rule 2(i) and is governed by the IPD Rules in terms of Rule 3
thereof. Rule 27 of the IPD Rules reads as under:
“27. Summary Adjudication
In cases before the IPD, the Court may pass summary judgment, without the
requirement of filing a specific application seeking summary judgment on
principles akin to those contained in Order XIIIA, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as
applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.”
15. Rule 27, thus, expressly dispenses with the requirement of a specific
application, which was the very requirement that weighed with the Division Bench
in Bright Enterprises (supra). What it retains is the substantive test under Rule 3 of
Order XIIIA CPC, namely, whether the defendant has any real prospect of
successfully defending the claim and whether there is any other compelling reason
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
why the claim should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence. The same
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
approach is reflected in Practice Direction 9(h) of the Delhi High Court (Original
Side) Rules, 2018, which reads as under:
“9. In the case of commercial disputes, the Court may, inter-alia, pass orders as it
may think fit for the speedy disposal of the suit or narrowing the controversy
between the parties, including:-
xxx
h) conduct a Case Management hearing under Order XV-A of the Code and as part
of the said case management hearing –
xxx
ii. explore the possibility of deciding the dispute by a summary judgment, without a
specific application for the said purpose, on the basis of pleadings dispensing with
the trial of the suit on the questions of law or of facts on which the parties are not at
issue;”
16. Coordinate Benches of this Court have consistently read Rule 27 in this
3
manner. In DHL International GmbH v. DLH Express Services Private Ltd,. it
was held as under:
“18. ... In so far as the prayer for summary judgment is concerned, as per the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018 (hereinafter "Original Side Rules") and Rule 27 of the Delhi High
Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (hereinafter "IPD Rules"),
summary judgment can be passed under Order XIIIA, if the Defendant has no real
prospect of succeeding in the matter. In fact, even the filing of application for the
same would not be required in terms of Rule 27. ...”
17. To the same effect is the decision in Heetich Marketing-Und Vertriebs
4
GmbH & Co. KG. v. Gupta Store, wherein it was observed as under:
“17. ... In fact, under Rule 27 of the IPD Rules even the filing of the application is
not a sine qua non. ...
xxx xxx xxx
20. The legislative intent behind the provision of summary judgment is to provide to
a party a remedy to seek a decree, distinct from a judgment on admission and one
under Order XXXVII CPC. As held in various judgments, the remedy of summary
judgment is available where there is no real prospect of the Defendant succeeding
and there is no genuine issue for trial. The test, therefore, is whether a fair and just
determination of a dispute is possible without trial and the necessary facts can be
determined by applying the legal principles rather than requiring the parties to
incur expenditure and spend time and resources to go through the rigours of a trial.
The standard is not really to see if the procedure for trial is exhaustive and costly
but to see if the Court has the confidence that the necessary facts and the legal
principles applied thereto would be enough to arrive at a just decision.”
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
3
CS(COMM) 563/2020, decided on 22.04.2022.
4
2022/DHC/002362.
5
18. More recently, in Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v. Nitish Kumar,
where the defendants had not appeared despite service, it was held as under:
“19. ... Predicated on the fact that in the present case, neither defendant nos.1 and
2 entered appearance despite service nor did they file their written statement and
were consequently proceeded ex-parte, no purpose would be served requiring the
plaintiff to adduce any formal evidence in the present suit. Moreover, under the
provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Rules 14 and 27 of the
Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (IPD Rules)
and Rule 1 in Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018
(hereinafter referred to as 'Original Side Rules, 2018'), this Court can proceed to
pass orders in the absence of the defendants or their defence, as the defendants are
noted to have been served and the plaintiffs have also made out their case. ...”
19. In the considered view of this Court, the exercise of power under Rule 27 in
the present case does not offend the concerns expressed in Bright Enterprises
(supra). Unlike in that case, summons have been duly served on the defendants, who
have had notice of the plaint, the documents and the claim against them for over
four years, during which the interim directions have remained in operation. They
have chosen not to appear. The Court is not proceeding on its own inquisition or on
any material outside the record; it is only testing the uncontroverted pleadings and
documents against the standard in Rule 3 of Order XIIIA CPC. Issues have not been
framed, and the matter is within the window identified in paragraph 21 of Bright
Enterprises (supra). Above all, the requirement of a specific application has since
been dispensed with by Rule 27 of the IPD Rules. The liberty granted to the
plaintiffs on 04.05.2026 was meant to facilitate the disposal of the suit; it was not a
condition precedent to the exercise of the power under Rule 27
20. In view of the above, the first question is answered in the affirmative. Rule 27
of the IPD Rules empowers this Court to pass a summary judgment in a suit before
the IPD without a specific application under Order XIIIA CPC. The fact that the
plaintiffs did not file such an application, despite the liberty granted on 04.05.2026,
does not take away that power. The safeguards that weighed with the Division
Bench in Bright Enterprises (supra) are met in the present case. Summons have
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
5
CS(COMM) 104/2022, decided on 04.02.2026.
been served, the defendants have had notice of the claim, and the power is being
exercised before issues are framed.
21. Clause (b) of Rule 3 of Order XIIIA CPC requires the Court to consider
whether there is any other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed
of before recording of oral evidence. Order VIII Rule 5(2) CPC further provides that
where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to
pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as
against a person under a disability, though the Court may, in its discretion, require
any such fact to be proved.
6
22. In Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Balraj Muttneja , this Court observed as under:
“5. The plaintiffs, despite having been granted sufficient time and several
opportunities, have failed to get their affidavits for leading ex parte evidence on
record. However, it is not deemed expedient to further await the same and allow
this matter to languish, for the reason that I have in Indian Performing Rights
Society Ltd. Vs. Gauhati Town Club MANU/DE/0582/2013 held that where the
defendant is ex parte and the material before the Court is sufficient to allow the
claim of the plaintiff, the time of the Court should not be wasted in directing ex
parte evidence to be recorded and which mostly is nothing but a repetition of the
contents of the plaint.”
23. The plaintiffs before this Court are not new to such litigation. As stated in
paragraph 24 of the plaint, plaintiff nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 had earlier instituted eight
suits against thirty infringing domains, which were decided by this Court in UTV
7
Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, . Thereafter, the plaintiffs, particularly
plaintiff no. 2, have obtained final decrees against similarly placed rogue websites in
a number of suits, most of them by way of summary judgment and without being
relegated to trial. Some of these decisions are tabulated below:
S.No. Suit and Event Nature of
Disposal
Nature of Order
1. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Summary
Judgment
dated
10.10.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://tamilrockers.ws & Ors.
CS(COMM) 369 of 2019 Event:
Cinematograph films
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
6
2014:DHC:964.
7
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002.
2. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Summary
Judgment
dated
10.10.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
http://www2.series9.io & Ors.
CS(COMM) 400 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
3. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Summary
Judgment
dated
10.10.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
http://www.onlinewatchmovies.com.pk/&
Ors.
CS(COMM) 403 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
4. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Summary
Judgment
dated
10.10.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://ww2.movierulzfree.com & Ors.
CS(COMM) 407 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
5. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Summary
Judgment
dated
10.10.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://xmovies08.ru & Ors
CS(COMM) 422 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
6. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Summary
Judgment
dated
10.10.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
Moviesflix.net & Ors.
CS(COMM) 457 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films.
7. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Summary
Judgment
dated
08.09.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://Hindilinks4u.to and Ors.
CS(COMM) 366 of 2019 Event:
Cinematographic films
8. Warner Bros. Entertainment Ine, v.
Judgment
dated
08.09.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
Https://www.Uwatchfree.st & Ors.
CS (COMM) 402 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
9. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Judgment
dated
08.09.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://skymovies.live & Ors. CS(COMM)
409 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
10. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Judgment
dated
08.09.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://yomovies.com & Ors. CS(COMM)
418 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
11. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Judgment
dated
08.09.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
rutracker.org & Ors. CS (COMM) 515 of
2019
Event: Cinematograph films
12. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Judgment
dated
01.06.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://Otorrents.com & Ors. CS(COMM)
367 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
13. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Judgment
dated
01.06.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://www2.filmlinks4u.is & Ors.
CS(COMM) 368 of 2019 Event:
Cinematograph films
14. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Judgment
dated
01.06.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
http://mp4moviez.io & Ors. CS(COMM)
399 of 2019 Event: Cinematograph films
15. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v.
Judgment
dated
01.06.2022
Dynamic
Injunction
https://www.tamilrockermovies.com & Ors.
CS(COMM) 419 of 2019
Event: Cinematograph films
8
24. In Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. https://tamilrockers.ws, which arose
on identical pleadings and sought identical reliefs, this Court held as under:
“24. Since the defendant nos. 1 to 16 and 51 to 237 are not appearing, despite
notice, in my opinion, the suit can be heard and decided summarily. The defendant
nos. 1 to 16 and 51 to 237 have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim
of copyright infringement and have further not chosen to contest the said claim. The
present matter is mainly concerned with the enforcement of the injunction orders,
which are passed against the rogue websites who do not have any defence to the
claim of copyright infringement, but use the anonymity offered by the internet to
engage in illegal activities, such as copyright infringement in the present case. This
is a fit case for passing a Summary Judgment invoking the provisions of Order XIII-
A of the CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes, read with Rule 27 of the
Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.
25. In the present case, applying the test as laid down in UTV Software (supra), and
considering the documents filed and the averments made in the plaint, which
remained uncontroverted, it has to be held that the defendant nos. 1 to 16 and 51 to
237 are 'rogue websites', with their primary purpose being to commit and facilitate
infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore, held entitled
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
8
2022/DHC/004171.
to a decree in terms of prayers made in paragraph no. 52(i), (ii) and (iii) of the
plaint.”
25. The present suit stands on the same footing. The defendant websites are
anonymous operators who, by their very design, never appear before the Court. The
averments in the plaint are supported by the affidavit of the investigator and by
documentary material. Requiring the plaintiffs to file affidavits by way of evidence
would add nothing to what is already on record and would only be a repetition of the
plaint. There is, therefore, no compelling reason why the claim should not be
disposed of without recording oral evidence. The second question is, accordingly,
answered in the negative.
26. This Court has already decided suits brought by the plaintiffs themselves, on
identical pleadings and for identical reliefs, without relegating them to trial. Nothing
in the present case calls for a different course. The plaintiffs, therefore, need not
lead oral evidence, and the suit can be decided on the pleadings and documents on
record. What remains to be seen is whether, on that material, the plaintiffs have
made out a case for the reliefs sought, and in particular whether defendant nos. 1 to
34 and 47 to 75 are ‘rogue websites’ within the test laid down in UTV Software
(supra).
27. This Court in UTV Software (supra) was dealing with an almost similar
controversy. In paragraph 1 of the said judgment, the following legal issues were
framed for adjudication:
“1. It is rare that in an ex-parte matter questions of law of general public
importance arise for consideration. However, in the present batch of ex-parte
matters the following seminal issues arise for consideration:-
(A) Whether an infringer of copyright on the internet is to be treated differently
from an infringer in the physical world?
(B) Whether seeking blocking of a website dedicated to piracy makes one an
opponent of a free and open internet?
(C) What is a „Rogue Website' ?
(D) Whether the test for determining a 'Rogue Website' is a qualitative or a
quantitative one?
(E)Whether the defendant-websites fall in the category of „Rogue Websites'?
(F) Whether this Court would be justified to pass directions to block the „Rogue
Websites' in their entirety?
(G) How should the Court deal with the „hydra headed' „Rogue Websites' who on
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
being blocked, actually multiply and resurface as redirect or mirror or
alphanumeric websites?”
28. The Court in paras.57 to 60 has considered what are the rogue websites. In
para 59, the following test have been laid down to ascertain whether the website
complained of is a Flagrantly Infringing Online Locations (FIOL)/Rogue website.
Para. 59 is extracted as under:
“59. In the opinion of this Court, some of the factors to be considered for
determining whether the Website complained of is a FIOL/Rogue Website are: (a)
whether the primary purpose of the website is to commit or facilitate copyright
infringement;
(b) the flagrancy of the infringement, or the flagrancy of the facilitation of the
infringement; (c) Whether the detail of the registrant is masked and no personal or
traceable detail is available either of the Registrant or of the user.
(d) Whether there is silence or inaction by such website after receipt of take down
notices pertaining to copyright infringement.
(e) Whether the online location makes available or contains Directories, indexes or
categories of the means to infringe, or facilitate an infringement of, copyright;
(1) Whether the owner or operator of the online location demonstrates a disregard
for copyright
generally; (g) Whether access to the online location has been disabled by orders
from any court of another country or territory on the ground of or related to
copyright infringement;
(h) whether the website contains guides or instructions to circumvent measures, or
any order of any court, that disables access to the website on the ground of or
related to copyright infringement; and i. the volume of traffic at or frequency of
access to the website; (1) Any other relevant matter.
60. This Court clarifies that the aforementioned factors are illustrative and not
exhaustive and do not apply to intermediaries as they are governed by IT Act,
having statutory immunity and function in a wholly different manner.”
29. The Court further emphasised that website blocking in the case of rogue
websites strikes a balance between preserving the benefits of a free and open
internet and efforts to stop crimes such as digital piracy, and recognised its power to
order the ISPs, DoT and MeitY to take measures to stop current infringements and,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
if justified by the circumstances, to prevent future ones. The relevant paragraphs
17:30:43
read as under:
“86. Consequently, website blocking in the case of rogue websites, like the
defendant-websites, strikes a balance between preserving the benefits of a free and
open Internet and efforts to stop crimes such as digital piracy.
87. This Court is also of the opinion that it has the power to order ISPs and the
DoT as well as MEITY to take measures to stop current infringements as well as if
justified by the circumstances prevent future ones.”
30. In the present case, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded each of the factors
laid down in paragraph 59 of UTV Software (supra), as noted in paragraph 7 above.
These averments, which are supported by the affidavit of the investigator and the
documents on record, stand uncontested. They also find support in the findings
recorded at the interim stage in paragraph 25 of the order dated 21.02.2022, namely,
that the websites are anonymous, that they actively stream the plaintiffs’ content
through illegal means, and that the legal notices issued to them evoked no response.
The plaintiffs have also explained the manner in which such websites resurface
under new domains. Paragraph 49 of the plaint reads as under:
“49. In cases where new iterations do not look substantially similar to the blocked
iterations of these sites, the Plaintiffs have not used the usual avenue of seeking to
implead the new iterations per the original orders, but have instead included the
new iterations as separate Rogue Websites in new Plaints. That has meant that the
applicants have been required to prepare, and the Hon'ble Court has been required
to consider and make findings on, entirely new evidence in relation to these new
iterations of blocked websites.”
31. Applying the test laid down in UTV Software (supra), and considering the
documents filed and the averments in the plaint, this Court holds that defendant nos.
1 to 34, as well as defendant nos. 47 to 75 impleaded subsequently, are rogue
websites whose primary purpose is to commit and facilitate infringement of the
copyright of the plaintiffs. They have no real prospect of successfully defending the
claim of infringement under Section 51 of the Act.
32. In para 107, of UTV Software (supra) the Court issued the following
directions:
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
“107. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, a decree of permanent injunction is
passed restraining the defendant-websites (as mentioned in the chart in paragraph
No. 4(1) of this judgment) their owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants,
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their
behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner hosting,
streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or
communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their websites, through the
internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph
work/content/programme/show in relation to which plaintiffs have copyright. A
decree is also passed directing the ISPs to block access to the said defendant-
websites. DoT and MEITY are directed to issue a notification calling upon the
various internet and telecom service providers registered under it to block access to
the said defendant-websites. The plaintiffs are permitted to implead the
mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the event they
merely provide new means of accessing the same primary infringing websites that
have been injuncted. The plaintiffs are also held entitled to actual costs of litigation.
The costs shall amongst others include the lawyer's fees as well as the amount spent
on Court-fees. The plaintiffs are given liberty to file on record the exact cost
incurred by them in adjudication of the present suits. Registry is directed to prepare
decree sheets accordingly.”
33. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that there is no impediment in
decreeing the suit in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii) of the plaint. The suit is,
accordingly, decreed in the following terms:
32.1 Defendant nos. 1 to 34 and 47 to 75, their owners, partners,
proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of
principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through,
by or under them, are permanently restrained from, in any manner, hosting,
streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or
communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their websites,
through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph
work/content/programme/show in relation to which the plaintiffs have
copyright.
32.2 Defendant nos. 35 to 43 shall block access to the websites of
defendant nos. 1 to 34, as listed in paragraph 25 of the order dated
21.02.2022, and of defendant nos. 47 to 75.
34. Liberty is reserved in favour of the plaintiffs, in terms of paragraph 107 of
UTV Software (supra), to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
merely provide new means of accessing the injuncted websites, by filing an
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43
appropriate application.
35. Since the plaintiffs are distinct entities, as noticed in the order dated
21.02.2022, the decree shall enure to the benefit of each plaintiff in respect of the
works in which that plaintiff holds copyright.
36. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
37. The suit, along with pending application(s), stands disposed of.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 7, 2026/P
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:30:43