D. P. Wadhwa ( 1 ) WHILE deciding I. As. 6468/84 and 77/85 I had found that the plaint had a false verification and so was the affdavit in support of I. A. 6468/84 wherein it was staled that the plaintiff had come to know about the alleged offending activities of the defendant in the month of September, 1984. The plaintiff and Mr. G. D. Kamath, Director of the plaintiff, appeared to have committed offences punishable under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code. I need not reproduce the facts herein again and 1 would refer to my order dated 30th January, 1985. I, therefore wanted to hold an inquiry if it was expedient in the interest of justice to file a criminal complaint in respect of the offences which appeared to have been committed by the plaintiff and Mr. G. D. Kamath. Notices were, therefore, issued by me and in pursuance thereto Mr. G. D. Kamath filed his affidavit. The Secretary of the plaintiff also filed an affidavit. It stands admitted that the averments made in the plaint as well as in the application for grant of temporary injunction were false and on that basis the plaintiff was able to get an ad interim ex parte order whereby I restrained the defendant from selling its product in sachet similar to that of the plaintiff. As observed in my order of 30th January, 1985, I would not have granted an ex parte injunction had I known that the plaintiff was aware of the alleged offending activities of the defendant as far back as February, 1981, when plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendant about these alleged offending activities and the defendant had also replied. I vacated the stay after hearing the parties. I, however, took a serious view of the matter that the verification and affidavit filed by the plaintiff should have been false. A great deal of anguish must have been caused to the defendant on account of the ex- parte stay which was granted on 16th November, 1984 and remained in operation till 30th January, 1985. The defendant on that account might have suffered loss also and on that account or otherwise if the defendant has any remedy against the plaintiff, I need not refer to that. The affidavits filed by the plaintiff and Mr. The defendant on that account might have suffered loss also and on that account or otherwise if the defendant has any remedy against the plaintiff, I need not refer to that. The affidavits filed by the plaintiff and Mr. G. D. Kamath in answer to show cause show how negligent and even reckless they were. At the same time they have offered apology. I have to see if filing of the complaint for the offences committed by the plaintiff and Mr. G. D. Kamath would be expedient both in the interest of justice and for the purpose of eradication of evil of perjury in the Court. Mr, Anoop Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the plaintiff and/or Mr. G D. Kamath had no intention to give a false declaration or to file a false affidavit. He submitted that they could not have deliberately concealed the facts of having issued a notice and also having received a reply from the defendant knowingly that these documents would, in any case, be brought on record by the defendant. He submitted that the action of the plaintiff and Mr. G. D. Kamath was on account of forgetfulness and they bonafide believed that the offending activities came to their knowledge only in September, 1984. I am not quite satisfied with this sort of explanation. However, I accept the submission of Mr. Anoop Singh that after the apology has been tendered to the Court and plaintiff and Mr. G. D. Kamath genuinely repent their actions the present proceedings should not be continued further and no complaint be filed. ( 2 ) I, therefore, discharge the notice but only on payment of Rs. 2,000. 00 (Rupees two thousand only) as costs payable to Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice, Chamber No. 3, Lawyers Chamber Block, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The costs shall be paid within one week and receipt produced before the Deputy Registrar on the next date. S. No. 1758/84 This case, it appears, was listed before the Deputy Registrar on 1st May, 1985, by which date the defendant was required to file the written statement. Let the matter be now listed before the Deputy Registrar on 16. 5. 85 for further proceedings.