IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 3756 of 2009 Between: 1 Bhadraiah Goud, S/o. Narasimlu, R/o. Ramachandrapuram Near BHEL, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Vasantha Kumar, S/o. Nagaiah, R/o. Nallagandal Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Padma, W/o. late Pandu Yaday, R/o. Nallagandal Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Mrs. G. Anupama Ram, W/o. Dt. Atmaram, H.NO. 3-3-84, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad-27. 2 Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing, (Prohibition) Act, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for the records connected with the order in I.A.No. 1176 of 2008 in L.G.C.No. 81 of 2003 dated 30-1- 2009 passed by the Spl. Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) At, and quash the same by issuing an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.MAHIPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order dated 30.1.2009 passed in I.A.No. 1176 of 2008 in L.G.C.No. 81 of 2003 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent-applicant filed I.A.No. 1176 of 2008 under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC praying to call for the thumb impression Document bearing No. 2186/1977 in Book 1 Volume 208 at pages 223 to 225 from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhavani Nagar, Moosapet, R.R. District to be sent to the Forensic Laboratory for comparison of signatures and Thumb Impression of late Mrs. B.C.Mark in the thumb impression document with the signatures on Exs. B-2 and B-16. It is stated that when the respondents therein filed a petition I.A.No. 252 of 2007 to receive the documents and wanted to mark documents on 23.7.2007, learned counsel for the applicant raised an objection stating that the first document i.e. Ex. B2, which is an un-registered sale deed dated 8.9.1976, to be marked, is inadmissible document and the second document i.e. Ex. B-16, which is another sale deed dated 14.9.1977, can be marked subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility and the Special Court allowed the I.A.No. 1176 of 2008 and directed that Exs B2 and B-16, registered sale deeds dated 8.9.1976 and 14.9.1977 containing the signatures of late Mrs. B.C.Mark and two letters filed by the applicant be sent to the Forensic Laboratory for comparison of signatures of late Mrs. B.C.Mark with the signatures on Ex. B2 and B- 16 and to give his opinion. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners’ evidence was closed on 22.8.2006 and the first respondent herein completed the rebuttal evidence on 26.2.2008 and when the matter was reserved for judgment, the learned judge ought not to have allowed the application. He also contended that the learned judge ought not to have observed that unless Exs B-2 and B- 16 are to be compared with the admitted signatures of B.C.Mark in a registered document by an expert and that has to be marked provided that when petitioners admit those documents, then only the question of sending the same with the expert arises. On the other hand, Ms. Pramada, appearing for contesting respondents contended that the first respondent filed applications viz., I.A.No. 881 of 2008 to reopen the case for arguments and while the said IA was pending, she filed another I.A to reopen the evidence in the case to call for the records from the Office of the Sub-Registrar for comparison of signatures of Mrs. B.C.Mark to send the documents i.e., Exs. B-2 and B-16 for hand writing expert, to send the documents to the office of the Registrar of Stamps for his opinion about the authenticity of the stamps on Exs. B-2 and B-16 and to summon registers from the office of the Srilingampally Municipality to examine the allotment of House numbers. She also submits that the Special Court sought for original documents containing the original signatures and thumb impression of Mrs. B.C. Mark in a sale deed executed on 14.9.1977 and two other documents which are letters written by Mrs.B.C.Mark dated 11.5.1973 and 8.3.1968, for comparison with the disputed signatures in Exs. B2 and B-16. She further submits that the applications filed by the first respondent are pending consideration before the Special Court. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the material made available on record. It is evident from the above narration that the new documents which were produced by the respondents for being compared with Exs. B-2 and B-16 are not yet admitted in evidence. It is fundamental that there may be comparison only between the admitted documents. As such, the documents with which respondents seek to compare Exs B-2 and B-16 must be available on record, must be duly admitted, must be duly marked and if admitted, they can be compared with the other admitted documents already on record. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further contended that they filed series of applications, which include application to call for official records, such as, thumb impressions from the concerned registrar and those applications are still pending consideration before the Special Court. In view of that, the impugned order sending Exs. B-2 and B-16 to the expert for comparison with other new documents as are now sought to be introduced by the respondents cannot be sustained and the impugned order is accordingly set aside. The Special Court is directed to consider and dispose of the applications including the present application i.e., I.A.No. 1176 of 2008 filed by the respondents, calling for documents etc. and then pass appropriate orders. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the directions as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR , J Dt. 21.07.2009 KA // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies