IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 15273 of 2009 Between: B. Balaiah S/o late ailaiah and four others. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Special Curt under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and two others .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No: The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking writ of Certiorari calling for the connected records including the order dated 12.3.2009 passed by the first respondent-Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, in I.A.Nos. 57 and 58 of 2009 in LGC No. 26 of 2008. I.A.No. 57of 2009 was filed in L.G.C No. 26 of 2008 under Section 151 CPC, to reopen the evidence of PW-1 for the purpose of cross-examination by the petitioners in I.A. First respondent therein filed counter affidavit opposing the above I.A, wherein it was stated that PW-1 is a house wife and aged about 85 years. As seen from the docket sheet, the affidavit of the applicant was filed on 5.11.2008 and it was posted for cross-examination to 11.11.2008. On that day PW-1 was present and as there was no representation on behalf of respondents in the LGC, the mater was adjourned on payment of costs of Rs. 500/- and on 2.12.2008 costs were paid and at the request of respondent’s counsel it was posted to 18.12.2008 for cross examination of PW-1. On 29.12.2008 PW-1 was present and not cross examined and a detailed order was passed on that day, which reads as under: “PW-1 is present. As seen from the docket sheet Pw-1 was examined in Chief and Exs. A-1 to A-8 were also marked on 5.11.2008 and the above case was posted for cross-examination of PW-1 to 11.11.2008. On 11.11.2008 PW-1 was present and that there was no representation on behalf of the respondents and the case was adjourned on payment of Rs. 500/- to 26.11.2008. On 26.11.2008 there was no quorum. On 2.12.2008 also PW-1 was present costs of Rs. 500/- was paid and the case was posted to 18.12.2008. From 18.12.2008 the case is posted to today i.e., 29.12.2008. The above docket sheet clearly shows that either the respondents counsel or the respondents are interested to proceed with the above case. The age of PW-1 approximately appears to be 80 years and it is not desirable for the court to allow the respondents to harass PW-1. If we allow, we will be failing in our duty. Already 3 adjournments were granted for cross-examination of PW-1 and on all those adjournments PW-1 was present. Under these circumstances, the right of cross-examination of PW-1 by the respondents counsel is forfeited”. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Special Court ought not to have dismissed the I. A and ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to cross- examine PW- 1. We have heard the learned counsel and also have perused the material made available on record. As seen from the order passed in I.A., petitioners were given number of opportunities to cross examine PW-1, who is house wife and aged about 85 years and on all adjournments PW-1 was present. Therefore, the Special Court rightly forfeited the right of cross-examination of PW-1 by the petitioners. Hence, we see no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Special Court warranting our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 31.07.2009 KA .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies