( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction with the following prayer:

"to pass adecree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant company by itself, its officers, employees, servants/agents or any other person whomsoever, from removing, defacing, damaging and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever, with the plaintiff s hoardings as detailed in Schedule- a to the plaint;"

( 2 ) IN annexure a the location and the site has been indicated as on the round about of the crossing at Punchkuin Road and Link Road (8 Hoarding Sites ).

( 3 ) THIS court issued summons to the defendants and in the interlocutory application, passed an ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from removing, defacing, damaging or interferring in any manner with the plaintiff s advertisements/hoardings on the round about of the crossing at Panchkuin Road and Link Road.

( 4 ) THE defendant M. C. D. in the written statement had taken preliminary objection that plaintiff is guilty of deliberately supressing material facts from this Court and on the basis of supression and concealment offacts, the ex parte injunction granted by this Court is liable to be vacated.

( 5 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the M. C. D. that the plaintiff had filed a suit No. 392/1985 titled as pawan Kumar Chopra Vs. M. C. D. with identical relief in the District Court, Delhi. The present suit has been filed in this Court in the name of Paramount Publicity Limited, a private company through its Managing Director Mr. Pawan Chopra.

( 6 ) THE prayer in the suit filed in the Trial Court is reproduced as under :

"it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon ble Court be pleased to issue permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, its officials, agents and employees from dispossessing the plaintiff from the sites mentioned in Annexure a and from removing, defacing or defacing the advertisements, hoardings/neo- sings etc. displayed on the sites as per Annexure a or in any way harassing the plaintiff for the display of advertisements/hoardings as per Annexure a .

( 7 ) ANNEXURE a which has been mentioned there also includes Sati Mandir Panchkuin Road round about 10 sites of 20 X 10 . No relief was granted in this suit in the Trial Court and dismissed in default. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit with identical prayer in this Court.

( 8 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the defendant MCD that this fact of filing the suit by the same party before the Trial Court for identical relief has been deliberately suppressed from this Hon ble Court.

( 9 ) MS. Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel for the MCD further submitted that after the grant of ex parte injunction, the plaintiff did not even-bother to pay the usual charges to the defendant on account of advertisement, ground rent, tax, etc. and ultimately because of the conduct of the plaintiff he was blacklisted by the M. C. D. Even this fact has been concealed from this Court. Ms. Tewatia, learned counsel for the MCD submitted that the Courts have always depricated the practice of supression and conceal- ment of material facts from the Court.

( 10 ) IN AIR 1978 SC 765 "udai Chand Vs. Shankar Lal and Others", the Supreme Court revoked the special leave granted by the Supreme Court and rejected the special leave petition and vacated the stay order. The Supreme Court Relied on on his earlier judgment "hari Narain Vs Badri Das" 19 64 (2) SCR 203 at page 209, their Lordships of Supreme Court observed as under:

"in dealing with applications for special leave the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. "in that case, the Court revoked the grant of special leave despite the fact that Mr. Setalvad, who had argued the s