Courts must take progressive approach in John Doe suits, can't insist on identifying unknown parties: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently calls on trial courts to take a progressive approach while dealing with John Doe suits, and not insist on the identification of unknown parties before such civil suits are entertained. [Cubes Entertainments v Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd & ors].'John Doe' suits (often referred to as 'Ashok Kumar’ suits in India) are civil proceedings filed against unidentified or anonymous legal opponents (defendants). Through such proceedings, a person filing the civil case (plaintiff) can sue unknown wrongdoers who can be identified and impleaded to the suit later.In a ruling passed on September 14, the High Court acknowledged that Order VI Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure(CPC), 1908, usually requires plaintiffs to disclose the details and the address of defendants against whom a civil suit is filed. However, it pointed out that such identification of defendants becomes impossible when they are unknown, as is the case in John Doe suits. Justice Easwaran S emphasised that courts must keep up with the growing use of such 'John Doe' proceedings and not allow the CPC’s procedural requirements to defeat such legal action.."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,” the Court said..The Court made the observation while dealing with a plea challenging a trial court’s refusal to number a John Doe suit filed against unknown review bombers who were allegedly targeting the ratings of Malayalam film Kattalan on BookMyShow.Since the film’s producer, Cubes Entertainment (plaintiff) did not know the exact identities of those who had posted the reviews, they were arrayed as 'John Doe/Ashok Kumars' in the suit.The trial court, however, refused to number the suit because the plaintiff had not provided the physical addresses of the unidentified review bombers/ defendants.This prompted the producer to approach the High Court for relief. .The High Court granted the producer relief. It observed that insisting on the identification of unknown defendants would defeat the very purpose of a 'John Doe' proceeding."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 Court said.The Court added that the trial court could have simply obtained an undertaking from the producer that once the identities of the defendants were revealed, they would be formally impleaded to the suit. It also criticised the trial court for not appreciating the urgency involved in the matter. "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," the High Court said. The Court added that the trial court must bear in mind that the CPC and such procedural rules are meant to be handmaidens of justice. They should not be used as technical obstructions to deny substantive justice, the High Court said. It proceeded to set aside the trial court's order and directed that the film producer’s John Doe/ Ashok Kumar suit be numbered..Advocate T Sukesh Roy and AR Divya represented the film producer..[Read Judgment]