Kerala High Court’s Progressive Stance on John Doe Suits
The Kerala High Court has recently emphasized the need for trial courts to adopt a progressive approach when handling John Doe suits, urging them to refrain from demanding the identification of unknown parties before proceeding with such civil cases. This ruling came in the case of Cubes Entertainments v Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd & ors.
John Doe suits, also known as ‘Ashok Kumar’ suits in India, are civil proceedings filed against unidentified defendants. These suits allow plaintiffs to initiate legal action against anonymous wrongdoers, who can later be identified and added to the lawsuit.
On September 14, the High Court addressed the procedural challenges associated with these suits, acknowledging that Order VI Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, typically mandates plaintiffs to provide the details and addresses of defendants. However, the court recognized the inherent difficulty in identifying defendants in John Doe suits.
Justice Easwaran S’s Perspective
Presiding over the case, Justice Easwaran S highlighted the increasing prevalence of John Doe litigation and urged courts to embrace a forward-thinking approach. He cautioned against allowing procedural rules to hinder the pursuit of justice in such cases. Justice Easwaran stated, “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… 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.”
Case Background
This observation arose from a plea challenging a trial court’s decision to reject a John Doe suit filed by Cubes Entertainment. The suit was directed against anonymous review bombers allegedly impacting the ratings of the Malayalam film Kattalan on BookMyShow. Due to the anonymity of the reviewers, they were listed as ‘John Doe/Ashok Kumars’ in the lawsuit.
More Read
The trial court had initially declined to register the suit because the plaintiff could not provide physical addresses for the unidentified defendants. This prompted Cubes Entertainment to seek intervention from the High Court.
High Court’s Directive
In response, the High Court granted relief to the producer, underscoring that insisting on the identification of unknown defendants would undermine the very essence of a John Doe proceeding. The court remarked, “The insistence on the part of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, to the petitioner/plaintiff to comply with the 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 numerous reviews in the 1st defendant platform as it is completely masked and unknown.”
The High Court suggested that the trial court could have obtained an undertaking from the producer to formally include defendants once their identities were discovered. It criticized the trial court for failing to recognize the urgency and specific needs of the plaintiff.
More Read
Ultimately, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed that the film producer’s John Doe/Ashok Kumar suit be numbered, reaffirming that procedural rules should serve justice rather than obstruct it.
Advocate T Sukesh Roy and AR Divya represented the film producer in this case.
[Read Judgment]
