Delhi High Court
John Willey & Sons Inc. & Ors. vs Alpa Agarwal & Anr. on 14 December, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: November 17, 2009
Date of Order: December 14, 2009
+CS(OS) 1796 of 2008
% 14.12.2009
John Wiley & Sons Inc. & Ors. ...Plaintiffs
Through: Mr.Shine Joy, Advocates
Versus
Alpa Agarwal & Anr. ...Defendants
Through: Defendants ex parte
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
1. This suit is listed for final disposal in view of ex parte evidence of plaintiffs. In
the present suit, plaintiffs have made allegations that defendant Alpa Aggarwal was
trading as Rawbooks-86 through ebay and was illegally exporting the books viz. students
editions brought out by plaintiffs for South Asian countries, at cheaper rates to Europe
and America and other countries. These books specifically had a public notice that they
were for sale in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka only and their
circulation outside these countries was strictly prohibited. However, defendants had
opened a book store on site www.ebay.com for sale of these books and the plaintiffs
visited the book store of defendants and placed an order for purchase of the plaintiffs'
publication. Plaintiffs representative also received e-mails confirming purchase order and
plaintiff thus learnt that Alpa Aggarwal was trading as rawbooks86 and plaintiff
CS(OS) 1796 of 2008 John Wiley & sons Inc. & Ors. v Alpa Agarwal & Anr. Page 1 Of 3
purchased the books and payments were made to [email protected] namely Dr.
A. Beotra (defendant no.2 herein). It is submitted that the plaintiffs do not know the exact
constitution of defendants.
2. The plaintiffs in the present suit had given an address of defendants where
summons of the Court were sent. It was then found that this was the incorrect address and
defendants were not living at the given address and the house belonged to some other
person. The registered post and other normal modes of service were tried to serve
defendants at the given address but since the identity and address of defendants were not
known service could not be effected. The plaintiff then served through e-mails and
defendants were proceeded ex parte on the basis of this service through e-mail. However,
I consider that an injunction by the Court can be issued only against a real and legal
person and not against a fictitious person having fictitious address. An injunction can be
issued against an individual, a company, a corporate body, statutory body, partnership
firm having real partners, a proprietorship firm having real proprietor but injunction
cannot be granted against a fictitious person. The sole purpose of issuing injunction is that
the Court can enforce its injunction. If the Court cannot enforce its injunction by any
mode whatsoever, there is no meaning of issuing such an injunction.
3. I, therefore, consider that in this case plaintiff should have, by engaging a
detective agency or by some other mode, traced out the real identity of defendants so that
the Court could issue an effective injunction which could be implemented. Issuing an
injunction against a fictitious person or a fake person created for the sake of cyber world
has no meaning.
CS(OS) 1796 of 2008 John Wiley & sons Inc. & Ors. v Alpa Agarwal & Anr. Page 2 Of 3
4. Thus, the judgment in this case cannot be pronounced on the basis of ex parte
evidence. An opportunity has to be given to plaintiffs to trace out the real identity of
defendants and inform the Court about the real identity so that the Court can pass an
injunction effective order.
5. List this matter now on 18th March, 2010
December 14, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
CS(OS) 1796 of 2008 John Wiley & sons Inc. & Ors. v Alpa Agarwal & Anr. Page 3 Of 3
