THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.No.25133 of 2010 ORDER The petitioner filed L.G.C.No.34 of 2009 against five individuals, including the second respondent herein (R5 in L.G.C.), before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (A.P.Act 12 of 1982), Hyderabad alleging in brief that all the five respondents therein had grabbed, illegally occupied and are enjoying the property in question. The petitioner earlier filed I.A.(SR).No.1231 of 2010 seeking pronouncement of judgment and passing of a decree insofar as the second respondent herein is concerned. By an order dated 31.03.2010, the Special Court rejected that application. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred another application I.A.(SR).No.1838 of 2010 seeking recording of a compromise between himself and the second respondent herein. That application the Special Court held was not maintainable without issuance of notice to the other respondents in the L.G.C. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.708 of 2010 under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC seeking withdrawal of the land grabbing case against the 5th respondent. By the order impugned herein, the learned Special Court rejected I.A.No.708 of 2010 on the ground that since the substratum of the petitioner’s case that led to the filing of the L.G.C was that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were jointly in illegal occupation of the petitioner’s property and committed the act of grabbing of land, the withdrawal of the L.G.C. against respondent No.5 alone without impleading and considering the objections of the other respondents i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 4 would prejudicially affect them. The learned Special Court has also recorded that the Mandal Revenue Officer in his report in the L.G.C., has stated about the extents of land involved in the separate possession of respondent Nos.1 to 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the L.G.C. have filed an application, in W.P.M.P.No.34560 of 2010 seeking to implead themselves as respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit accompanying this application, the petitioners herein (R1 to R4 in the L.G.C.) allege that the petitioner and the 5th respondent have colluded to inter alia create material for use by the petitioner against these petitioners (respondents) in the L.G.C. It is also alleged across the Bar by Sri Abhishek Reddy, learned counsel for the implead petitioners that if the petitioner and the 5th respondent are permitted to enter into a compromise by this method a title would be created thereby either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the 5th respondent and to the detriment of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the L.G.C. as well as in any other proceedings. We have, by a separate order of this date, allowed W.P.M.P.No.34560 of 2010 and thereby, the petitioners therein are impleaded as respondent Nos.3 to 6 in the writ petition. Having considered the contentions urged on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 6, we find no basis for their apprehensions. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.708 of 2010 in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009 before the learned Special Court arraying respondent Nos.1 to 5 as respondents therein, but with an endorsement thereunder that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are not necessary parties to I.A.No.708 of 2010. Therefore, any averment made in I.A.No.708 of 2010 or the dismissal of the LGC as against the second respondent herein, who is the 5th respondent in the L.G.C., would have no bearing on any possible defences that respondent Nos.3 to 6 may have in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009. Any contention that may be urged by the petitioner as a consequence of any arrangement that he enters into with the 5th respondent in L.G.C. would be decided by the appropriate adjudicatory forum, including the Special Court. The circumstances in which such arrangement has been entered into between the petitioner and the 5th respondent being outside of the knowledge, consent and without considering the objections of respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein, who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 in L.G.C, cannot affect them. It is trite principle that the petitioner, being the dominus litus, is at liberty to pursue the litigation either against one or more of the parties and is also at liberty to give up one or more respondents from the array of respondents during the currency of the proceedings. Only when the petitioner seeks the leave of the Court to institute fresh proceedings against any party, against whom he abandons current proceedings, is the leave of the Court, necessary. The plaintiff or the petitioner has always the liberty to abandon any part of or any of the defence either the whole of the claim or a part of the claim. This is an unfettered right available under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980. In the circumstances and on the analysis above, none of the reasons recorded by the learned Special Court for declining I.A.No.708 of 2010 commend acceptance by this Court. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. I.A.No.708 of 2010 is in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009 before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 is ordered. However, this act of withdrawal would not in any manner prejudice any defences that respondent Nos.3 to 6 may have in the L.G.C. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:07.12.2010 sj