IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO HUNDRED AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4823 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Zafar Ahmed ..... Petitioner AND Smt.Shahzadi Begum and others .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 4823 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by his impleadment as defendant No.3 in the suit O.S. No.2121 of 2007 by order dated 26.11.2008 passed in I.A. No. 1487 of 2008 by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first respondent herein who is plaintiff in the suit filed the above suit seeking mandatory and perpetual injunction. It is her case that as the respondents 2 and 3 herein have raised five pillars abutting the eastern wall of her house without leaving any set back and sine her easmentary rights are adversely affected, she complained to the Police, Shahali Banda and Chief City Planner and Assistant City Planner, Circle No. II but sine no action had been taken, she filed the suit. After filing the suit, with a view to circumvent to status quo order passed by the court below, the respondents 2 and 3 herein have transferred the portion of their house in favour of the petitioner herein and he is carrying out the illegal construction. As such, seeking to implead him as defendant No.3, the first respondent filed the above petition. The court below observing that since the respondents 2 and 3 have no counters and they did not have objection to allow the petition and since the petitioner herein was set exparte, allowed the petition and the petitioner herein was impleaded as third defendant in the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the impleaded third defendant filed this Revision Petition. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since no notice was served on the petitioner, he could not enter appearance before the court below and, therefore, by setting him exparte, the court below ought not to have passed the impugned order. Without adverting to the merits or otherwise of the contention raised, if no notice was served on the petitioner, as sought to be contended, the petitioner ought to have agitated the issue before the court below by filing appropriate application instead of rushing to this court invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari October 22, 2009 MAS.