1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. LPA No. 56/2008 in W.P.No.4245.2007 (Nagalla s/o Sureshbhau Kasipati .vs. Nagalla s/o Kishor Kashipati and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. A. J. Thakkar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A.M. Gordey, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 5. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &, R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : APRIL 09, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction against his brother and others. In the said suit, the appellant/original plaintiff also prayed for interim injunction against the respondents/original defendants. The trial court, the appellate Court as well as the learned Single Judge found that the appellant failed to make out prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents. All the Courts, therefore, rejected the application for interim injunction moved by the appellant. The appellant has challenged those orders by preferring this L.P.A. 2 3. It may be seen that the writ petition filed by the appellant shows that it was a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the pleadings would reveal that it cannot be a writ under Article 226 but is only under Article 227 and that is what has been observed by the learned Single Judge in para no.11 of the impugned order. In view of this the LPA itself is not tenable. The L.P.A. is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai