PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) THE present order disposes of plaintiff s application IA No. 3025/2005. The application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying that till disposal of the suit, the defendants should be restrained from transferring, selling, creating a charge or parting with possession of land and building bearing No. 37, Sector-18, Maruti Industrial Area, Gurgaon ; 70, Sector-18, Maruti Industrial Area, Gurgaon and B-26, Gulmohar Park, new Delh.

( 2 ) AN ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff on 20th April, 2005.

( 3 ) VIDE order dated 18. 4. 2006, disposing of IA No. 6971/2005, the ex-parte order dated 20th April, 2005 was modified, in that, property bearing no. B-26, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi was excluded from the purview of the injunction granted.

( 4 ) THUS, in respect of the 2 properties at the Industrial Estate in gurgaon, injunction operates.

( 5 ) CASE of the plaintiff in support of the injunction is that with effect from 28. 9. 1996, defendant No. 1 was appointed as a Director of the plaintiff and with effect from 3. 5. 1995, defendant No. 2 was appointed as the director. Whereas defendant No. 1 had resigned from the Board on 16. 12. 2004, defendant No. 2 is stated to have continued to be a Director.

( 6 ) IT is pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 were in complete control of the affairs of the plaintiff and siphoned of huge amounts of the plaintiff. These amounts were illegally diverted to defendants 3 and 4 which are companies incorporated and controlled by defendants 1 and 2.

( 7 ) IT is further stated that defendants 3 and 4 carry on similar business as that of the plaintiff, being manufacture of toys.

( 8 ) IT is pleaded in para 5 of the plaint that in the year 2001-2002, chemicals worth Rs. 41. 77 lacs were allegedly purchased by the plaintiff from the defendants 3 and 4. Account books were falsifying. No chemical was received.

( 9 ) IN para 6 of the plaint it is stated that between April, 2001 to november, 2001 semi-finished goods in sum of Rs. 76. 89 lacs were shown as purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No. 3 by and under 10 separate purchase vouchers. But, in the inward register at the gate of the factory of the plaintiff, no such entry of goods has been recorded. It is further stated that in the stock register of the plaintiff, said semi-finished goods have not been entered into. In para 7 of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff had been buying goods from defendant No. 3 at a price higher than the market price.

( 10 ) IT is further pleaded that during the period April, 2003 to November, 2004 plaintiff paid to defendants 3 and 4 huge amounts for purchasing latex. In relation to the goods manufactured by the plaintiff it is stated that latex consumed would be approximately 562. 498 metric tonnes less than what has been shown to have been purchased from defendants 3 and 4. It is stated that the value of the said quantity of latex is about 245. 59 lacs.

( 11 ) IT is further stated that during the period defendants 1 and 2 remained in control of the affairs of the plaintiff, salary and wages of employees of defendant No. 3 approximating Rs. 23 lacs were paid from the accounts of the plaintiff.

( 12 ) A summary of the amounts defalcated has been set out in para 14. Amount shown as defalcated is Rs. 521. 08 lacs.

( 13 ) SUIT seeks recovery of Rs. 5,21,08,000/- against the defendants.

( 14 ) IN her written statement, defendant No. 2 has denied that she was incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the plaintiff. It has been pleaded by her that the operations of the plaintiff were being carried out under the overall supervision of defendant No. 1. It has been specifically pleaded by defendant no. 2 as under :-

"in any event the affairs of the plaintiff company were being run by the defendant No. 1 with the team under his control of the production, finance etc. which reported to him. "

( 15 ) IT is further pleaded that the affairs of defendant No