IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 256 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 582 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 335 OF 2007 M/s Sopariwala Joglekar and Noor .. Appellants V/s M/s O.K. Motor Works & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.S. Dani i/b Ms. Nisha Valani for the Appellants. Mr.P.K. Samdani, Senior Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3. CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 11TH APRIL 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. The appeal arises from the order dated 6th March 2007 passed in Notice of Motion No.582 of 2007 in Suit No.335 of 2007. On account of failure on the part of the Appellants-Plaintiffs to make out a case of balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour to obtain relief of temporary injunction in the nature of restraining the Respondents from carrying out construction or creating third party interest in the - 2 - suit property, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the notice of motion by the impugned order. 2. On hearing the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of records, it is apparent that neither the suit property has been properly identified in the plaint nor the plaint is clear about the nature of the title which the Appellants claim to the suit property. In the circumstances, therefore, we find absolutely no case made out for interference with the impugned order. Para 1 of the plaint, which refers to the suit property, neither clarifies the exact nature of the title which the Appellants claim to the suit property nor describes the suit property as required in terms of law. Besides, in case any relief is to be granted in the nature of injunction, the identity of the suit property has to be clear otherwise it can lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Being so, we do not find that any case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.) (D.G. KARNIK, J.)