The Court emphasized the importance of full disclosure and truthful conduct in legal proceedings, and imposed costs and reimbursement as consequences of misleading conduct.

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present suit is listed in Court pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2012.

2. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against his brother, the defendant, seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant or his servant or agent from entering into the business premises of the plaintiff and the business itself which is being run in the name and style of M/s Narula Bakery in the premises No.3/38-A, Nehru Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi.

(b) Restrain the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from his business of M/s Narula Bakery being run in the above said premise or any other appropriate order/orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the wake of the facts and circumstances of the case.

(c) That the cost of the litigation be also decreed and awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

3. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff had filed an application for stay under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, registered as I.A. No.16070/2012. The relief prayed for in the aforesaid application is as below:-

“In the above said facts and circumstances it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may please grant the temporary injunction to the plaintiff during the pendency of this suit restraining the defendant from interfering in the business of Narula Bakery and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the premises as described Narula Bakery 3/38-A, Nehru Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055.”

4. When the suit was listed in Court on 03.09.2012, the same was registered and summons were issued to the defendant, returnable before the Joint Registrar on 20.11.2012, for completion of service and pleadings. Further, the suit was directed to be placed before the Court on 04.03.2013, i.e., today, for purposes of framing of issues. Contemporaneously, while issuing notice on the interim application for stay filed by the plaintiff, directions were issued to the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the title and possession of the suit premises and the plaintiff was called upon to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within one week.

5. It is relevant to note that the case set up by the plaintiff in the present suit is that the premises bearing No.3/38-A, Nehru Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi, was given by MCD on license to the father of the parties, who had expired in the year 1985 and thereafter, the plaintiff had been running a bakery business in the said premises. In para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff refers to another property opposite the aforesaid premises, being shop No.25, Nehru Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi, which is a three storeyed building, in the joint names of the wives of the plaintiff and the defendant. It is averred in the aforesaid para that the defendant is running his business from the said shop, in the name and style of “Virender Confectionery” and both, the plaintiff and the defendant have been running their respective businesses separately in separate premises and that there has not been any dispute between the parties in that regard. In para 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that he has been exclusively running his business of bakery in the name of “Narula Bakery” from the suit premises and has been paying the fees for the health trade license and trade license to the MCD.

6. In para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff reiterates the fact that he is running the aforesaid business from the suit premises, whereas the defendant has his own separate premises, i.e., shop No.25, Nehru Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi, from where he is running his business in the name of “Virender Confectionery”. Thereafter, a passing reference is made to a settlement in the family regarding ownership of the properties being in the offing and the plaintiff goes on to state that the same has no bearing insofar as the businesses being run by the parties in their two separate premises are concerned. In the cause of action para, the p