( 1 ) wp9261-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9261 OF 2010 Sau Gayabai Shivaji Phopase & another PETITIONERS VERSUS Dilip Vishwanath Amle (Ambale) & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. K.N. Lokhande, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Inamdar, advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 13th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The injunction application of the petitioners was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the suit was only in respect of relief for possession regarding alleged encroached area. The petitioners, however, sought interim injunction in respect of the operation of the floor mill situated in distinct part of the property which is not subject matter of the suit. The first Appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial Court. Thus, there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below. It goes without saying that the ( 2 ) wp9261-10 interim injunction was sought in respect of some other property which is not described as suit property in the plaint. 3. There appears no perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks liberty to amend the pleadings. The petition is dismissed with liberty as prayed for. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp9261-10