ORDER : This C.R.P., is filed against the order in E.P.No.9 of 2023 in I.A.No.805 of 2017 in O.S.No.405 of 2017 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as contrary to law. 2. This revision is filed stating that in E.P.No.9 of 2023 the trial Court issued warrant for seizure of specific movable property mentioned in schedule of movable property which is neither mentioned in the E.P.proceedings nor in the decree and order passed in I.A.No.805 of 2017 nor in the plaint in O.S.No.405 of 2017. Therefore, the E.P., is not in accordance with the decree and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. Originally the suit in O.S.No.405 of 2017 is filed for infringement of trade mark and I.A.No.805 of 2017 is filed to restrain the respondents by itself, its servants, agents, licensees, heirs or any one claiming through them from advertising or in any manner using in respect of their restaurant, hotel, eatery a deceptively similar Trade Mark “SANTOSH” or any other deceptively similar trade mark in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads, literature, promotional material and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way conceptually, visually or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark “SANTOSH DHABA” or by using any other trade mark which is in any way conceptually, structurally, visually, or phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark No.2391012 in Class 43 in respect of services relating to providing food & drink, hotel and restaurant services or in any other manner of services, and there by infringe the plaintiff’s registered trade mark till disposal of the main suit. 4. The contention of the petitioners herein is that the order in I.A., is not for seizure of any material whereas the E.P., is for seizure of movable property which contains name of “SANTOSH. As such, the order is contrary to law and it is liable to be set aside. 5. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Agarwal Abhishek, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the trial Court gravely erred by allowing the E.P., giving warrant to seize the material containing the name of “SANTOSH” which is not according to the decree. Therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the same. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the trial Court gravely erred by allowing the E.P., giving warrant to seize the material containing the name of “SANTOSH” which is not according to the decree. Therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the same. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit is filed for infringement of trade mark and Interim Application is filed to restrain the revision petitioners from using the same and restraining order itself shows that they cannot use the same in their premises and it is implied meaning. He further submitted that the order in Interim Application is challenged by way of C.M.A.No.39 of 2023 by the revision petitioners and the said C.M.A., was dismissed by this Court on 28.08.2023 confirming the order of the trial Court. Therefore, there is no illegality in execution of warrant and there are no merits in the civil revision petition and prayed the Court to dismiss the same. 8. On going through the rival contentions and the material placed on record, the plaintiff in O.S.No.405 of 2017 is using the trade mark ‘SANTOSH DHABA’ with respect to almost all the activities enumerated from commencement of business from the year 1995 and got completely organized in the year 2004 due to hard work of the plaintiff. The name “SANTOSH” ought to have become famous to the general public and recognized the trade mark. In the year 2017 it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendants using his trade mark “SANTOSH DHABA” and not maintaining the quality of “SANTOSH DHABA” due to which his business is deepened and the public are misled by using identical mark with respect to identical services and the defendants’ restaurant services are sub-standard in quality. As such, he is suffering from losses in the business. The unauthorized use by the defendants is bound to cause confusion in the marked places amounting to “abusing the defendant’s services as that of plaintiffs”. 9. As such, he is suffering from losses in the business. The unauthorized use by the defendants is bound to cause confusion in the marked places amounting to “abusing the defendant’s services as that of plaintiffs”. 9. Though the respondent filed counter in the said I.A., denying the same the trial Court ordered I.A.No.805 of 2017 in favour of the plaintiff restraining the respondents therein from using the trade mark “SANTOSH DHABA” or any other trade mark which is in any way conceptually, structurally, visually or phonetically similar to the petitioner trade mark No. 2391012 in Clause 43 in respect of services relating to providing food and drink and the said order is confirmed by this Court by order dated 28.08.2023 in C.M.A.No.39 of 2023 & Batch. Later the respondent herein filed E.P., for issuing warrant and the trial Court issued warrant for seizure of any advertising material in the name of SANTOSH DHABA. When bailiff went for execution, he was restrained by the revision petitioners and report was filed before the Court. Now this revision is filed against the order in E.P., stating that it is not in confirmation with the order in I.A.No.805 of 2017 as the said I.A., was filed to restrain the revision petitioners from using the license and trade mark “SANTOSH” or any other similar trade mark in restaurant business whereas the trial Court erroneously ordered for seizure of the articles. That apart, there is no schedule of property in the order and without any schedule of property E.P., is not maintainable. Therefore, the order is against the settled principles of law. As seen from the record, the order of the trial Court is restraining the revisions petitioners from using trade mark when they are holding advertising material or any other material in the premises showing the name of SANTOSH amounts to infringement of rights of the respondent and the order simply means to seize the said material, unless it is seized, the order will become infructuous. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and further contention of the revision petitioners is that there is no suit schedule property in E.P, and alternatively it is not sustainable without any schedule of property, whereas the order is against using of the trade mark and trade mark can be used in any of the premises in restaurant business, as it is not the order with regard to immovable property, the schedule of the property is not required in such type of orders. 10. Viewed from any angle there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court in issuing warrant in E.P.No.9 of 2023 in I.A.No.805 of 2017 in O.S.No.405 of 2017. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.