IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION Nos.4650 and 4658 of 2010 Between: Major Richard Hema Sunder Rao and three others … Appellants And Jaswant Rao Desalu. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION Nos.4650 and 4658 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) W.P.No.4650 of 2010 is filed against the order passed by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, dated 14.09.2009 dismissing I.A.No.271 of 2009 in L.G.C.No.7 of 2007 filed to set aside the order passed on 03.02.2009 dismissing L.G.C. with costs of Rs.2,000/-. W.P.No.4658 of 2010 is filed against the order passed by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, dated 03.02.2009 in L.G.C.No.7 of 2007. Petitioners earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.283 of 1992 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, West and South, Ranga Reddy District against the respondent seeking injunction restraining him from interfering with their possession of Ac.7-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.115. On decreeing the suit on 28.06.1996, respondent filed O.S.No.303 of 1993 against the petitioners and the same has been dismissed. Alleging that the respondent violated the injunction decree, petitioners filed E.P.No.83 of 2002, which was allowed on 07.01.2006 ordering to send the respondent to civil prison. Questioning the same, the respondent filed C.R.P.No.620 of 2006, which was dismissed, against which S.L.P.(Civil).No.17974 of 2006 is filed and the same is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Alleging that in spite of suffering a decree, the respondent grabbed the property, petitioners filed the above L.G.C., in which the respondent put up appearance and filed counter opposing the case and denying about his grabbing of property. On petitioners filing affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, the matter was posted to 22.09.2008 for marking the documents and also for his cross- examination. Since P.W.1 was not present on 21.10.2008, 12.11.2008, 21.11.2008, 30.12.2008, 21.01.2009, 30.01.2009, the matter was adjourned to 03.02.2009, on which date the L.G.C. was dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-. On dismissal of the L.G.C., petitioners filed the impugned I.A.No.271 of 2009, in which the respondent has not filed any counter opposing the restoration petition in spite of awarding costs of Rs.500/- for adjourning the matter for enabling him to file counter. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the I.A. holding that when the L.G.C. was dismissed by imposing costs of Rs.2,000/-, the same has not been deposited by the petitioners and they also failed to explain proper reason as to why they could not prosecute the case and did not present in the Court even after four moths of filing of the chief-affidavit. Questioning the same, the present writ petitions are filed. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.271 of 2009, the petitioners stated that they have engaged the services of Simon Preeth Kumar as the counsel who was attending the case. Later they engaged Mr.Bhasker Benny, as their counsel and as the counsel failed to inform the petitioners about the case, they have engaged Sri K.Ranganathan and Associates, to represent their interest and filed the above I.A. for setting aside the ex parte order. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners since the respondent suffered an injunction order and for violation whereof the respondent was directed to undergo imprisonment and the revision filed against the said order has been dismissed, the petitioners claim should not be thrown out on mere technicalities that they were not present on the date of hearing particularly when they explained the reasons in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. When the respondent violated the injunction order passed by the competent civil Court, dismissing the L.G.C. with costs, will amount to confirming the premium on the respondent. In view of the same, the trial Court ought to have exercised the discretion in allowing the I.A. by imposing costs. Since it has failed to exercise the discretion, ends of justice will be met if the petitioners will be given an opportunity to contest the claim on merits by allowing I.A.No.271 of 2009 on condition of petitioners depositing Rs.2,000/- costs to the credit of the LG.C., within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and further sum of Rs.2,000/- costs to the Legal Services Authority, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On payment of such costs, I.A.No.271 of 2009 stands allowed and consequently, L.G.C.No.7 of 2007 shall stand restored to its file. Further, the petitioners shall make available themselves on the next date of hearing to which date the case stands posted for marking the documents and cross-examination. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed with the above direction with costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 7th April 2010 lmv