Address Not Needed For Suits Against Unknown Persons: Kerala High Court Directs Numbering Of Plea Over Anonymous 'Kattalan' Film Reviews
The Kerala High Court has directed the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to number a suit preferred by production company M/s Cubes Entertainments seeking removal of the reviews of the Malayalam movie 'Kattalan' from BookMyShow platform. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 503]Justice Easwaran S. set aside the munsiff court's order rejecting the plaintiff's application seeking exemption from complying...
The Kerala High Court has directed the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to number a suit preferred by production company M/s Cubes Entertainments seeking removal of the reviews of the Malayalam movie 'Kattalan' from BookMyShow platform. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 503]
Justice Easwaran S. set aside the munsiff court's order rejecting the plaintiff's application seeking exemption from complying with Order VI and Rule 14A CPC, which mandates petitioners to provide the address of the parties for service of notice.
“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… 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,” the Court observed.
The petitioner is the producer of the 2026 Malayalam film 'Kattalan' starring Antony Varghese released in May. It preferred a suit seeking removal of the film's reviews made by unknown persons on BookMyShow, the subsidiary of Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited (1st respondent/1st defendant). The 2nd defendant in the suit was arrayed as 'John Doe/Ashok Kumar' since it was not aware of the exact identities of the persons who made the reviews.
The Munsiff court refused to number the suit and insisted compliance with Order VI Rule 14A CPC. It also dismissed the petitioner's application seeking exemption from the procedural requirements under the provision. Aggrieved, the production company has approached the High Court.
The Court referred to Rule 14A as well as the decisions in Taj television v. Rajan Mandal [(2003) FSR 22], E.S.P.N Software India Pvt Ltd. v. Tudu Enterprises and Ors. [C.S.(O.S) No 384/2011] and UTV software communications ltd and Ors v. 1337X.To.Ors. [(2019) SCC Online del 8002].
It then remarked that it is impossible to comply with the afore procedural requirements in John Doe suits. The Court further observed that the trial court ought not to have used the procedural rules 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,” the Court opined.
Thus, the Court allowed the plea, set aside the order denying exemption from Order VI Rule 14A. It then directed the munsiff court to number the suit and to consider the petitioner's interlocutory application.
Case No: O.P.(C) No.2655 of 2026
Case Title: M/s Cubes Entertainments v. Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
Counsel for the petitioner: T. Sukesh Roy, A.R. Divya