ground cannot seek continuation of the suit when the plaintiff is not desirous thereof. I reiterate that the decree sought being against defendant no.1 Herdsceneand, if any other journalist claims any right, would be free to exercise the same and the plaintiff, if aggrieved therefrom will have his remedies thereagainst. 12. The senior counsel for the defendants no.2 and 3 viz. Instagram LLC and Facebook Inc. and the senior counsel for the defendant no.5 Google Inc. have contended that a decree in terms of prayer paragraph ‘A’ and ‘B’ of paragraph 45 of the plaint will affect their rights inasmuch as web links qua which orders are sought are not only of defendant no.1 Herdsceneand but of several other entities viz. Economic Times, Business Standard, etc. and who are not parties to the suit. 13. The senior counsel for the defendant no.5 Google Inc. has also contended that defendant no.5 Google Inc. is merely one of the search engines and the impugned content is sought to be removed from the index of defendant no.5 Google Inc. only and not from the index of other search engines where also it continues to be hosted on the host website of those publications. 14. The senior counsel for the plaintiff states that under the decree sought in terms of prayer paragraph 45 ‘A’ and ‘B’, no further removals than what have already been effected pursuant to orders dated 18th September, 2019 and 30th September, 2019 will be sought. 15. The senior counsel for defendant no.5 Google Inc. has contended that the question, whether in such cases defendant no.5 Google Inc. is a necessary party or not and whether any action against defendant no.5 Google Inc. can be initiated without impleading the host websites whose content the defendant no.5 Google Inc. is merely indexing and making available on search being undertaken by any individual, be left open for consideration in another appropriate case. 16. Allowed. CS(OS) 483/2019 Page 4 of 5