PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) BY and under the present order I dispose of IA No. 8363/2006 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying that pending disposal of the suit, defendants No. 1 to 3 be restrained from carrying on competing business with that of the plaintiff; defendants No. 4 and 5 be restrained from carrying on competing business with that of the plaintiff; defendants No. 1 to 3 be restrained from dealing with the customers of the plaintiff; defendants No. 1 to 3 be restrained from transferring, alienating or creating third party rights in the movable and immovable assets of defendants No. 4 and 5.

( 2 ) VIDE order dated 31. 7. 2006 while issuing notice in the application, defendants No. 1 to 3 were restrained from transferring, alienating, or creating third party rights in the movable and immovable properties of defendants No. 4 and 5.

( 3 ) SINCE I am dealing with an interim injunction, I would be briefly noting the rival versions. Needless to state, observations and findings in the present order would be for purposes of forming a prima facie opinion. Nothing stated in this order would be read as an expression on the merits of the controversy between the parties. The ultimate fate of the suit would be decided in view of the evidence led by the parties.

( 4 ) SUIT has been instituted by a private limited company. Plaint has been signed and verified on behalf of the plaintiff by one Gautam khandelwal styling himself as the director of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) CASE pleaded in the plaint is that Late G. D. Khandelwal was the proud father of 5 sons. The five sons carried on various businesses either as co-partnerships or as private limited companies. That share of the respective branches, whether as partners or as shareholders of the companies was in proportion to their share as if the assets were joint family assets. That 2 companies, namely, the plaintiff and. Uma Shanker Forging Limited were constituted by the brothers. 2 partnership firms, M/s. Uma Shanker khandelwal and Co. and M/s. Bansi Dhar Chiranji Lal were constitued. That the two companies and the two firms were popoularly known as the 'khandelwal Group'.

( 6 ) GAUTAM Khandelwal is a son of the fourth son G. D. Khandelwal. Defendant No: 1 is the son of the second son of G. D. Khandelwal. Defendants no. 2 and 3 are the wife and son respectively of the fifth son of late Shri G. D. Khandelwal.

( 7 ) IT is stated in the plaint that as the family grew, it became more and more difficult for the various groups to stay together and on 15. 1. 2004 a minutes of meeting was recorded as per which the plaintiff company was assigned to the family members of the fourth son of Shri G. D. Khandelwal. It is stated that the minutes of the meeting contemplated division of the other family businesses: Qua defendants No. 4 and 5, in paras 9 to 13 of the plaintiff is pleaded as under:-

9. It is submitted that since the year 2001, Mr. Subhash Khandelwal, mr. Sameer Khandelwal and Mr. Abhey Shanker Khandelwal startd siphoning funds from the family businesses and set up two competing businesses by the name of M/s. USK Exports Pvt, Ltd. (defendant No. 4)and M/s. USK Trading Pvt: Ltd. . (defendant No. 5 ). M/s. USK Exports pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 13. 02. 2001. It is submitted that the shareholders of M/s. USK Exports Pvt. Ltd, included Mr. Kapil khandelwal (defendant No. 3) s/o Mr. Subhash Khandelwal, Mr. Sameer khandelwal (defendant No. 1) s/o Mr. Abhey Shanker Khandelwal, mr. Subhash Khandelwa, Mrs. Madhu Khandelwal (defendant No. 2) (wife of Mr. Subhash Khandelwaland Director in the plaintiff), Mrs. Ritu khandelwal (Wife of Mr. Sameer. Khandelwal) and Ms. Shreya khandelwal (daughter of Mr. Sameer Khandelwal ). The annual return of defendant No. 4 for the year 2001-02 shows the list of shareholder of m/s. USK Exports Pvt. Ltd. as on 30:09. 2002. The annual return also shpws that Mr. Sameer Khandelwal and Mr. Kapil Khandelwal were directory in M/s. USK Export