THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.69 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.72 of 2010 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Parkal, against the order, dated 19.06.2009 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in I.A.No.179 of 2008 in O.S.No.72 of 2008. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. She also filed I.A.No.179 of 2008 for grant of temporary injunction. In the said I.A., the petitioners were set ex parte on 19.12.2008. Aggrieved by the same, they filed I.A.No.1 of 2009 seeking to set aside the said order. The Court below dismissed the said I.A. through the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2009 indicates that in I.A.No.179 of 2008, at the first instance, after service of notice, on behalf of the petitioners, vakalath was filed on 29.10.2008. Thereafter, the said I.A. was adjourned to 07.11.2008 for filing counter. Since then, it was adjourned several times for filing counter. When the matter was listed on 17.12.2008, final opportunity was given to the petitioners for filing counter and the matter was posted to 18.12.2008, on which date, the matter was again adjourned to 19.12.2008. Even on that day, the counter was not filed and therefore, the petitioners were set ex parte and the I.A. was posted for orders on 27.12.2008, on which date, orders were passed in I.A.No.179 of 2008. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no sufficient opportunity was given by the Court below to the petitioners, the reasons given by it in the impugned order ex facie show that in spite of several opportunities, the petitioners did not move in the matter for filing counter, as such, there was no sufficient reason to set aside the ex parte order passed in I.A.No.179 of 2008. Further, it is to be noticed that I.A.No.179 of 2008 was disposed of finally. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2009 filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.179 of 2008 in O.S.No.72 of 2008. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd JUNE, 2010. kvni