Neetu(t.me/ssccoursepaid1) which do not exist on the defendant No.1's cloud services. 9. Considering the fact that immediate grievance of the plaintiffs has been addressed by the defendant No. 1 and in view of the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant No. 1 that as and when intimated, the defendant No. 1 will take down the offending channels within 36 hours of the intimation, this Court is not passing any ad-interim injunction at this Stage, awaiting the reply affidavit.” 8. The said order was modified on 23rd September, 2020 in the following terms: “9. In the meantime, defendant No.1 is directed to take down the channels mentioned at Sr.Nos.1 to 201 of document No.1 with the present application irrespective of the fact whether they are private or public channels.” 9. Thereafter, in the said suit, an application being I.A. No.8461/2020 has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 10 CPC, seeking discovery of the details of the persons who are operating these channels. Arguments have been heard in the said application. Submissions 10. Ms. Rajeshwari, ld. counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs, primarily submits that: (i) As per the Privacy Policy of Telegram itself, in terms of Clauses 3.3.5, 5.3, 8.3 and the FAQs attached, if there is any violation of law, Telegram is liable to take down such channels and also disclose the information relating to the persons who are running the said channels. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 5 of 51