HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.23223 OF 2010 Dt.21.9.2010 Between: Dr.Vani ..Petitioner And The II Addl. District Judge-cum- Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, R.R. District and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.23223 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioner herein filed L.G.O.P.No.1419 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to declare that the 2nd respondent herein grabbed the land of the petitioner to an extent of 310 sq.yards situated in Meerpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and to direct him to deliver vacant possession of the property. It is stated that notice was issued to the 2nd respondent and he refused to receive the same on 17.1.2009 and the Process Server reported the same to the Central Nazar on 19.1.2009. Therefore, the Special Court allowed the said L.G.O.P by order dated 10.7.2009 directing the 2nd respondent to deliver vacant possession of the property in favour of the petitioner and awarded damages of Rs.50,000/- per annum to the petitioner for the illegal occupation of the schedule property by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed applications to condone the delay of 30 days in the filing the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 10.7.2009. It is stated that the respondent also issued notice to the counsel for the petitioner stating that the respondent filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 10.7.2009 by serving the copies of the said two applications and stated that the date of hearing of the case will be duly informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.6.2010. It appears that the respondent herein filed I.A.No.2041 of 2010 under Section 151 C.P.C., to recall the warrant issued in the said case to take possession of the schedule property pending disposal of the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 10.7.2009 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The first respondent Special Court by order dated 2.9.2010 granted stay of execution of warrant till 13.9.2010 and the said order was extended up to 20.9.2010 and it was extended until further orders. Aggrieved by the said order dated 2.9.2010 in I.A.No.2041 of 2010 in L.G.O.P.No.1419 of 2009, this writ petition is filed to set aside the said order. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the said application in I.A.No.2041 of 2010 is filed to recall the warrant issued for taking possession of the schedule property pending disposal of the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. It is also the contention of the respondent that wrong address of the respondent has been furnished and obtained decree. We are not inclined to express any opinion whether the respondent really refused to receive the notice and whether correct address of the respondent is furnished or not. These matters are to be considered in the said applications. The petitioner has not filed the copy of the affidavit and the petition filed in support of I.A.No.2041 of 2010 except filing the copy of the order. We are of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to approach the very self-same Court by filing a counter taking all the contentions about the maintainability of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Special Court disposed of the L.G.O.P. on merits, the application to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., is not maintainable and the order impugned is also not maintainable. We are of the opinion that it is open for the petitioner to raise all the questions before the Special Court. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case with regard to the aforesaid contentions, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to relegate the petitioner to the Special Court to raise all the questions by filing counters in all the three applications. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting the petitioner to file counters in all the three applications in L.G.O.P.No.1419 of 2008. On such filing of counters in the three applications, the Special Court shall number the same and dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of filing of the counters. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 21.9.2010 Note: Issue copy within two days B.O. kpr