Kerala High Court Directs Numbering Of Suit Over Anonymous Review Of Antony Varghese's Kattalan

The Kerala High Court has directed the Principal Munsiff court in Ernakulam to number a suit seeking removal of a review of the malayalam film Kattalan posted on BookMyShow.

Justice Easwaran S. held that insisting on the physical address of an unidentified reviewer defeats the purpose of “John Doe” proceedings.

“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,” the court observed.

“Kattalan, a Malayalam action thriller starring Antony Varghese, was released in May 2026. Cube is its producer. 

Cubes Entertainments had approached the Ernakulam court seeking removal of a review of Kattalan posted on BookMyShow. It also sought other reliefs to protect its rights.

The identity of the person or persons who posted the review was unknown. Cubes Entertainments therefore arrayed the unidentified reviewer as a “John Doe”.

Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited, which operates under the BookMyShow brand, was also made a party to the suit.

The Principal Munsiff court refused to number the suit because Cubes Entertainments had not complied with Order VI Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The provision requires every pleading to be accompanied by a statement regarding the address of the party. The court noted that this requirement is meant to facilitate the issuing of summons.

Cubes Entertainments then sought an exemption from Order VI Rule 14A and Order VII Rule 1(c) of the CPC. The trial court rejected the application, prompting the company to approach the High court.

The High court found that the requirement created a conflict in a John Doe proceeding. The identity of the person who posted the review was unknown, making it impossible for the company to provide the required details.

“The procedural conflict between Order VI Rule 14A of CPC and the 'John Doe' exemption was not considered in its correct perspective" the court observed.

The court also observed that the Principal Munsiff court was “completely at remiss” in not appreciating the requirement of the plaintiff and the urgency expressed in the suit.

Tracing the development of John Doe proceedings in India, the court noted that the concept was first introduced by the Delhi High court in Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal. The case involved unlicensed cable operators who were restrained from unlawfully broadcasting the 2002 FIFA World Cup content belonging exclusively to the plaintiff's channel.

The concept was later expanded in E.S.P.N Software India Pvt Ltd. v. Tudu Enterprises. The court also referred to the Delhi High court's decision in UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.to, which discussed the test for issuing John Doe orders.

The court observed that John Doe litigation is “expanding rapidly”. It held that courts must adopt a progressive approach when entertaining such suits and should not allow themselves to be tied down by procedural requirements.

The court noted that it is “virtually impossible” to comply with the address requirement in John Doe proceedings. The exact details of the people who posted reviews on the platform are masked and unknown.

The trial court could also have obtained an undertaking from the company to implead the actual person who posted the review once that person's identity was revealed, the High court observed.

The court further observed that procedural rules under the CPC are “the handmaidens of justice”. They should not be used as technical obstructions to deny substantive justice, the court held.

The High court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court's order. It directed the Principal Munsiff court to number the suit on the date the certified copy of the judgment is produced and to consider the pending interlocutory application forthwith.