*1* nms.1420.09 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1420 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.785 OF 2009 Vijayan K. Nair and others. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- Vinod K. Nair and others. ..Defendants .......... K.P.Reshma Ravi for the Plaintiffs. I.K.Tripathi a/w N.R.Dubey i/b C.K.Tripathi for the Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010. P.C. 1 This Notice of Motion can be disposed of on the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. He has invited my attention to the order of the City Civil Court, a copy of which is at page Nos.34 and 35 of the plaint paper book. The City Civil Court has granted in the Plaintiffs' suit an interim injunction in their favour restraining the Defendant No.3 in that suit from alienating the suit property in whatsoever manner. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 that the property in both suits is common. Further he states that the injunction therein binds only the Defendant No. 3 before the City Civil Court namely Vinod K. Nair but in the present suit, the learned counsel has instructions to state that the Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 shall abide by this injunction. In other words, his instructions are to state that the injunction order granted by the City Civil Court has been *2* nms.1420.09 abided and will be continued to be abided by the Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. 2 In the light of this statement made, all that can be granted at this stage considering the prima facie case made out so also balance of convenience, is prayer clause (b) of the Notice of Motion. 3 Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The order of injunction shall apply to the property which is more particularly described in the plaint and particularly in prayer clause (a) thereof. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)