1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODG.) NO. 499 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2500 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2138 OF 2008 Mr.Sunil Jain, Mumbai and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Mr.Ebrahim Valibhai Sawarkundalawala 14 others ...Respondents .... Mr.S.P.Srivasatava for Appellants Mr. Shyam Mehta along with Piyush Raheja i/b Fedral & Rashmikant for Respondent Nos.14 and 15 .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs. Suit No. 2138 of 2008 has been filed by the Plaintiffs and in the said suit, Notice of Motion No. 2500 of 2008 was 2 taken out for a temporary injunction against Defendant No.13 in respect of plot of land located in Hissa No.14 of Survey No.208 of village Borivali (Part of Mumbai Municipal Corporation area). The learned trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the Motion by the impugned order dated 24th July, 2008. 2 On perusing the record, the learned trial Judge noted that the agreement which was allegedly executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1, was in respect of Hissa No.15 and not Hissa No.14 which infact was described as suit property in the plaint. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Appellants before us as well but he added that Hissa No.15 was encroached upon and therefore, the Defendant No.1 handed over or agreed to hand over possession of Hissa No.14. 3 The revenue record and more particularly the order dated 13th April, 1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Bombay Suburban District in an appeal filed under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 shows that the order passed by the Extra Aval Karkun Borivali on 19th May, 1987 was set aside and Tahsildar Borivali was directed to remove the name of Defendant No.1 entered in the other 3 records column of record of rights in respect of Survey No. 208/14 of village Borivali. The revenue record therefore, shows that Defendant No.1 did not have title to the plot located in Hissa No.14 Survey No.208 at least prima facie and therefore, the view taken by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the Notice of Motion cannot be faulted with. 4 Hence, this appeal must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. ]