IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1223 OF 2007 Between: Panny Swamy (died) Santhamma (died) P.S.Krishna and another …Petitioners A n d Nagender Rao (died) Per LRs M.Prameela Rani and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1223 of 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-01-2007 in I.A.No.1302 of 2006 in L.G.C.No.35 of 2001, on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC, was allowed, setting aside the ex parte order dated 05-10- 2001. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed the LGC against the respondents. The first respondent was impleaded as Respondent No.10 in the LGC. The matter stood posted to 05-10-2001 for appearance of the respondents. Respondent No.10 in the LGC was set ex parte as the notice issued to him was returned ‘unclaimed’. According to him, he was residing away from the address mentioned in the notice on account of his job in the electricity department and, therefore, he could not receive the notices. He filed I.A.No.1302 of 2007 for setting aside the ex parte order and sought to explain the delay by impleading that he was suffering from cancer and, therefore, he took retirement from service in June, 2006 and then only he came to know about the pendency of this case. The petitioners herein filed a counter opposing the application on the ground of delay. The learned Special Court, by the impugned order, allowed the said application and set aside the ex parte order against the first respondent herein. In the impugned order, it is stated as follows:- “It is represented on behalf of R-5, 6, 11, 12 & 16 that he has no objection to allow the above IA. G.P also submitted that he has no objection who is appearing for R-1 to R-4. Counsel for R-8 and R-9 absent, no representation.” 4. The petitioners contend that the Government Pleader was representing only the official respondents 5 to 8 in I.A.No.1302 of 2006 who are respondents 2 to 5 herein but not the petitioners herein who were respondents 1 to 4 in I.A.No.1302 of 2006 and, therefore, the question of Government Pleader stating no objection on behalf of the petitioners, who are private parties, does not arise. It is not understandable how the Government Pleader could have stated no objection on behalf of the petitioners herein who are private parties and who filed the LGC against other respondents, including the official respondents. The allowing of the application and setting aside the ex parte order against the first respondent herein based on the purported consent of the Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners herein also is, therefore, unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Assuming that the Government Pleader stated no objection on behalf of the official respondents who are impleaded as Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the LGC, the impugned order is silent about the contention of the petitioners herein who are impleaded as Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in I.A.No.1302 of 2006 and who filed a counter opposing the petition. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Special Court for fresh disposal of I.A.No.1302 of 2006 on its merits duly taking into consideration the objections taken by the petitioners herein in their counter filed in I.A.No.1302 of 2006. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th March, 2011 Lrkm