The court emphasized that misleading statements in seeking ex-parte injunctions undermine judicial integrity, warranting vacating such orders.

ORDER :

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

1. The defendants have filed the present application under first proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for vacating order dated 24^th October, 2024, passed by this Court (Coram : R.I. Chagla, J.), whereby ex-parte ad-interim reliefs were granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants claim that the plaintiff knowingly made false and misleading statements in relation to material particulars in their pleadings while obtaining the aforesaid order dated 24^th October, 2024. The defendants have principally raised two grounds in support of the said prayer. Firstly, that the plaintiff deliberately misrepresented the registered trade mark of the defendants and placed comparison between the registered trade mark of the plaintiff on the one hand and a misrepresented version of the registered trade mark of the defendants on the other, in order to obtain ex-parte ad-interim reliefs. Secondly, it is alleged that the plaintiff quoted only a portion of the reply sent on behalf of the defendants to the plaintiff to the cease and desist notice, so as to give a distorted version of the assertions made on behalf of the defendants in the said reply, while obtaining the said ex-parte ad-interim reliefs. It is the case of the defendants that by indulging in such acts, the plaintiff violated the mandate of the law laid down in various judgments in the context of the first proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC and on that basis, the defendants are seeking to vacate the order dated 24^th October, 2024.

2. The pleadings in this application were completed wherein the parties have made allegations and counter allegations. The documents and material on record are sought to be interpreted by the parties in support of their respective stands. In that light the learned counsel for the parties were heard.

3. Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants submitted as follows :

(A) The plaintiff deliberately made misleading and false statements in the plaint as well as the interim application, suppressing material facts, thereby obtaining ex-parte ad- interim reliefs as per order dated 24^th October, 2024. The plaintiff deliberately depicted the trade mark of the defendants as consisting of two rhinos moving in opposite directions, thereby misrepresenting that the registered trade mark of the defendants consisted of only a pair of rhinos depicted in the aforesaid manner. The said misrepresented mark of the defendants was juxtaposed against the registered trade mark of the plaintiff, which consists of a pair of elephants pulling in opposite directions, to create an impression before this Court that there was deceptive similarity between the two. Such an assertion and distorted depiction of the registered trade mark of the defendants was repeated at various places in the plaint, as also in the interim application filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

(B) Although the registration certificate issued for the trade mark of the defendants was annexed as a document in the voluminous plaint and exhibits, while highlighting comparative analysis of the rival marks, the entire registered trade mark of the defendants consisting of six rhinos i.e. three rhinos on each side moving in opposite directions, was not placed before this Court while obtaining the order dated 24^th October, 2024. This is evident from the manner in which the order dated 24^th October, 2024, recorded the submissions of the plaintiff and thereupon proceeded to compare the rival marks.

(C) If the plaintiff had been fair and the entire registered trade mark of the defendants was placed before this Court in an honest manner, this Court would have had the opp