HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4663 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S. No.35 of 2010 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, for declaration of title and injunction in respect of two items of the suit schedule property. They have also filed I.A. No.630 of 2010 under Order - XXXIX Rules – 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties. It is stated that the trail Court ordered urgent notices and respondents 1 and 2, being residents of USA, have executed General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.3, who is none other than the mother of the petitioners. Petitioners contend that though no appearance is entered by respondents 1 and 2, the 3rd respondent has already entered appearance, and she is proposing to alienate the suit schedule properties, taking advantage of the fact that there is no order of temporary injunction. It is stated that the I.A. is now stands posted to 06-12-2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the nature of the orders passed by this Court, it is not felt necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 3. This revision is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ventilating the grievance that the trial Court has not taken up the I.A. on the ground that the notice is not served on respondents 1 and 2. Both of them are said to be residents of USA. It is also stated that they have executed GPA in favour of their mother, 3rd respondent. 4. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the trial Court can consider the feasibility of passing orders vis-à-vis the 3rd respondent, particularly, when respondents 1 and 2 are said to have executed GPA in her favour. 5. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing that the learned District Judge, Kurnool, shall consider the feasibility of advancing the I.A. duly issuing notice to the 3rd respondent and passing of order of temporary injunction, as prayed for vis-à-vis the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 16, 2010. KTL