THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.3314 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.588 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their henchmen not to interfere with their peaceful and personal life in the suit schedule property. As the first and second defendants were called absent on 22.01.2010, they were set ex parte and the suit was posted for arguments on 29.01.2010. At that stage, learned counsel for the defendants filed I.A.No.51 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking to set side the said ex parte order. By the Order, dated 12.03.2010, the Court below, disbelieving the version of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the counsel for the defendants refused to receive notice, held that admittedly no notice was ordered to the defendants on 22.01.2010 and allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that though the suit was adjourned on four occasions and when the petitioners tried to serve notices, the counsel for the defendants refused to receive the same on the ground that there are no instructions from the defendants and that the Court below ought not to have set aside the ex parte order. 4. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that due to the death of his friend’s mother, learned counsel for the defendants was absent on 22.01.2010, whereas the petitioners state that he refused to take notice on behalf of the defendants on the ground that there are no instructions from his clients. For one reason or another, admittedly, no notices were served on the defendants. Either for mere refusal to take out notice by the learned counsel for the defendants on the ground of no instructions, or the learned counsel was absent on 22.02.2010 due his personal inconvenience, the parties should not suffer. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 5. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 13.08.2010 sj