=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.254 NO.254 NO.254 OF 2008 OF 2008 OF 2008 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.1576 OF 2008 MOTION NO.1576 OF 2008 MOTION NO.1576 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.1352 OF 2008 NO.1352 OF 2008 NO.1352 OF 2008 Kamlesh Ashok Makhija ...Appellant v/s Amrit M. Kapoor and others ...Respondents Mr Shailesh Shah i/b M/s S.B. Amin and Co.for Appellant. Mr R.R. Mishra for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr R.A. Karale for Respondent No.5. WITH WITH WITH APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL (L) NO.327 OF 2008 (L) NO.327 OF 2008 (L) NO.327 OF 2008 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1576 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.1576 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.1576 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.1352 OF 2008 NO.1352 OF 2008 NO.1352 OF 2008 M/s Gurunanak Construction ...Appellants v/s Kamlesh A. Makhija and others ...Respondents =2= Mr R.A. Karale for Appellants. Mr Shailesh Shah i/b M/s S.B. Amin and Co. for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 12TH MARCH 2009 12TH MARCH 2009 12TH MARCH 2009 P.C. :- 1. Both the appeals can be conveniently disposed off by a common order because they are directed against the same order. 2. Appeal No.254 of 2008 is filed by the original plaintiff whereas appeal (L) No.327 of 2008 is filed by the original defendant No.5. The plaintiff has filed the suit for administration of the estate of his parents. The plaintiff claims that flat Nos.993 and 1013 belonged to his parents, therefore he has share in those flats. The learned Single Judge has found that so far as flat No.1013 is concerned, it appears that the plaintiff has share in the flat, therefore, the learned Single Judge granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 from selling, transferring, alienating, parting with possession or demolishing the flat No.1013. The learned Single Judge however did not =3= grant any temporary injunction in relation to flat No.997. The plaintiff is in appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge declining to grant any ad-interim injunction in relation to flat No.997 whereas the defendant No.5 is in appeal challenging the same order in so far as it operates against flat No.1013. According to the defendant No.5, there is an order made granting ad-interim injunction restraining defendant No.5 from demolishing the flat. The case of the defendant No.5 is that in the notice of motion, there is no prayer asking for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.5 from demolishing the flat. According to the defendant No.5, in the absence of there being any prayer made, the learned Single Judge could not have granted temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.5 from demolishing the flat. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. From the record, it appears that so far as flat No.997 is concerned, there is not a single document placed on record by the plaintiff which will prima facie show that parents of the plaintiff had any interest in the flat. In our opinion therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of the learned Single Judge declining to grant any temporary injunction in relation to flat No.997. The appeal filed by the plaintiff therefore cannot be entertained. It is =4= rejected. 4. So far as the appeal filed by the defendant No.5 is concerned, perusal of the notice of motion No.1516 of 2008, on which this order has been passed, shows that there is no prayer made in the motion asking for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.5, who is builder, from demolishing the flat No.1013. In our opinion, in the absence of any prayer being made in the motion, the learned Single Judge could not have granted temporary injunction which would operate against defendant No.5. Therefore, appeal filed by the defendant No.5 succeeds, the order dated 29th April 2008 is modified in so far as it restrains the defendant No.5 from demolishing flat No.1013. It is accordingly so ordered. Both the appeals are disposed off. Notice of motion No.2007 of 2008 is disposed off. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( A.A. SAYED J.)