IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :4388 of 2009 Between: 1. Mohammed Miyan and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Mohammad Yousuf .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4388 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 24.8.2009 in I.A.No.923 of 2009 in I.A.No.785 of 2009 in O.S.No.3424 of 2009, passed by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.3424 of 2009 for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application in I.A.No.785 of 2009 seeking interim injunction against the defendants. On 23.7.2009, the Court below granted ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from making and raising any further construction over the suit schedule property. While so, the plaintiff filed the application in I.A.No.923 of 2009 seeking to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad to implement the injunction orders. The Court below passed the orders directing the Police, Shalibanda P.S., to assist the plaintiff in implementation of injunction order. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the defendants. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the plaintiff that though the injunction orders are in subsistence, the defendants, who were the tenants, are trying to change the nature of the schedule premises by raising constructions. The order under revision goes to show that on the direction issued by the Court below in I.A.No.923 of 2009, a notice was issued, but the counsel for the defendants refused to receive the same. When a party makes a claim, it is the duty of the Court to put the opposite party on notice to answer such claim. In the instant case, a notice was issued, but the same was refused. The refusal of such notice would lead to draw an adverse inference against the defendants. Under the above circumstances and in view of the nature of the proceedings, I feel that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court and hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 18th September, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4388 OF 2009 18.09.2009