M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, counsel for petitioners, and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, counsel for 3rd respondent. None appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, even though the name of Sri Ashwat Goud is printed in the cause-list. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order Dt. 04.02.2009 in I.A. No. 28 of 2009 in O.S. No. 892 of 2005 of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the above suit.

3. They filed the suit against respondents for declaring notices Dt. 29.08.2005, 25.10.2005 and 27.10.2007 issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the Provisions Act of 40 of 1977 as ultra vires, invalid and not binding on them; and for a perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a common written statement, and 3rd respondent filed a separate written statement.

5. The respondents filed I.A. No. 1358 of 2006 seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the Court Fee paid was less. After contest, the said petition was allowed in part and