NARINDER SINGH SABHARWAL Vs. GURDEEP SINGH SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A.7582/95isanapplicationunderOrder39,Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction against the defendant. I.A. 7841 /95 is an application filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule, 4 read with Section 151 of the Code for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order of injunction dated 25th July, 1995.

(2.) Narinder Singh, plaintiff No. 1 is the son of late S. Meharban Singh. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons and plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the grand-sons of plaintiff No. 1. Defendant is the son of S.Devinder Singh. Narinder Singh had another brother Harbans Singh. Devinder Singh is the natural son of Narinder Singh. There is a dispute, which is subject matter of another litigation. Plaintiff No. 5 herein has filed Suit No. 559/95 against defendant's father Devinder Singh, impleading Narinder Singh and Smt. Joginder Kaur (wife of Narinder Singh), claiming a decree that Devinder Singh is not the adopted son of Harbans Singh and his wife Smt. Kesar Kaur but is the son of Narinder Singh and Joginder Kaur. These facts have been stated only to appreciate the arguments addressed at the bar and not with a view to record any findings on the respective contention of the parties, which is the subject matter of another litigation.

(3.) Plaintiffs in their suit have claimed a decree for injunction against the defendant restraining him from entering into the premises of the partnership-firm M/s. Sabharwal's, 51, Panchkuin Road, New Delhi and from holding out to the public at large that he is related with the business of partnership-firm M/s. Sabharwal's. It is alleged that plaintiffs along with S. Devinder Singh are the partners of the firm M/s. Sabharwal's, business of which is being carried on in 51, Panchkuin Road, New Delhi. The defendant, who is the son of Devinder Singh, for the last few months started interfering with the business of partnership unauthorisedly and tried to take undue advantage of his relation with the plaintiffs. He also had started giving out to public at large that he was connected with and related to the business of partnership-firm. It is alleged that due to this act of the defendant, public notice dated 10th March, 1983 had to be issued but despite repeated requests and persuation, the defendant was adament and was trying to exploit his relationship with the plaintiffs and was unnecessarily trying to interfere with the business of partnership at 51, Panchkuin Road, New Delhi. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code was also filed with a prayer to restrain the defendant from interfering with the business of the firm M/s. Sabharwal's.