T.S. Thakur, J

1. This appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1981 is directed against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No. 1087/2005 whereby defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit have been directed to remain present for recording their statements under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The plaintiff respondent in this appeal claims a copyright in a project called the Cold Chain Project and the entire technology and know-how relating to the same. Alleging that defendant No. 1 in the suit who was earlier working with the plaintiff as its Managing Director had manipulated his position with a view to having the said project shelved, the plaintiff respondent sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants including defendant No.3 appellant herein restraining them from implementing the project or any variation thereof or divulging the details relating to the said project to Defendant No.2 or to any third party. An injunction restraining defendant No.1, the erstwhile Managing Director of the plaintiff company from taking up employment in relation to any project similar to the Cold Chain Project was also prayed for.

3. By an order dated 9th August, 2005, the Single Judge trying the suit on the original side of this Court issued an ex-parte order of injunction in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC restraining defendant No.1 from commencing, implementing or being involved in any project based on the know-how relating to the plaintiff companys Cold Chain Project and divulging the details relating to the plaintiff companys project to any third party including defendants No. 2 and 3.

4. Defendant No.1 in the suit sought vacation of the above order in terms of an application filed by him under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC. So also defendants No. 1 to 3 sought production of certain documents in terms of Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC. These applications came up for hearing before the Single Judge on 14th February, 2007 when he disposed of the applications for production of the documents and directed defendants No. 1 and 3 to the suit to remain present in the Court for recording their statements under Order 10 Rule 2 of the CPC, if so required. The relevant portion of the order dated 14th February, 2007 reads:

14.02.2007

Present: Ms.Pratibha M.Singh and Mr.Bishwajit Dubey for the plaintiff.

Mr.Pramod Gupta for defendant No.1.

Mr.Ankit Goyal for defendants Nos.2 and 3.

CS(OS) 1087/05

Last opportunity is granted to file original documents within four weeks. List before Joint Registrar for admission/denial of documents on 05.04.2007. List before Court for framing of issues on 14.05.2007. Defendants Nos.1 and 3 to remain present in Court for recording of Statement under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if so required.

IA 6056/05 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and is 8626/05 (Under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC). At request of learned Counsels for the defendants, list on 14.05.2007 in the category of Short Cause Matters. The parties to keep ready a short synopsis running not more than 3 pages for hearing of the interim application.

February 14, 2007 Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

5. The appellants version is that since his pleader was duly authorized and competent to answer all questions in regard to the matters in controversy and also since no issues could have been framed on the next date of hearing, i.e. 14th May, 2007, the appellant was not present before the Court on the said date. The appellants further case is that on 14th May, 2007 when the suit was called on for hearing, his pleader had submitted to the Court that he was authorized to answer all questions in regard to the matter in controversy and that the learned Single Judge could examine him in terms of Order 10 Rule 2 of the CPC. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge ignored the submission made by the pleader and passed a short order which reads as u