WP/23959/2007 of Nandamuri Vijaya Durga,W/o. Late Nandamuri Trivikrama Rao, Vs Nandamuri Kalyana Chakravathi Alias on 24 December 2007

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

ANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.23959 of 200724-12-2007

Between:Nandamuri Vijaya Durgaand another… PetitionerandNandamuri Kalyana Chakravarthi aliasPani Kumara Raja, and two others.… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.23959 of 2007

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy)

This writ petition has been filed by the respondents inL.G.C.No.31 of 2002 against the order dated 26-10-2007 passed inI.A.No.769 of 2007 on the file of Special Court under Andhra PradeshLand Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A.No.769 of 2007 underOrder 18 Rule 4 and Order 26 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code ofCivil Procedure seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner torecord cross-examination of RWs 1 to 3. The petitioners herein filed acounter resisting the petition. The learned Special Court, onconsidering the material brought on record and on hearing counsel forthe parties, proceeded to allow the petition and appointed AdvocateCommissioner for recording cross-examination of RWs 1 to 3 by orderdated 26-10-2007. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 13-11-2007. Therespondents in the writ petition filed WVMP No.3173 of 2007 with aprayer to vacate the interim stay granted on 13-11-2007 in WPMPNo.31191 of 2007.

4. At this stage, respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition filed amemo seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the petition filed bythem before the Special Court seeking appointment of an AdvocateCommissioner to record cross-examination of RWs 1 to 3. Thepetitioners filed objections to the said memo.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners andlearned counsel appearing for contesting respondents.

6. Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing forpetitioners took us through the affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 toshow that uncharitable allegations have been made against the writpetitioners. He has also drawn our attention to the reply affidavit of thepetitioners to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of first respondent.

7. The question for consideration is whether respondents 1and 2 can be permitted to withdraw the petition filed by them seekingappointment of Advocate Commissioner to record cross-examinationof RWs 1 to 3. Allegations and counter-allegations have been madeby the parties against each other. This is not the Forum to adjudicateupon the rival contentions put forth by the parties touching upon the‘wills’, which are the subject matter in LGC. It is suffice to state thatcontesting respondents herein seek permission of this Court towithdraw the petition filed by them seeking appointment of AdvocateCommissioner to record cross-examination of RWs 1 to 3. When such request has been made,we do not see any reason to reject the same. Hence, respondents 1and 2 are permitted to withdraw I.A.No.769 of 2007 in L.G.C.No.31 of2002 filed by them seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner torecord cross-examination of RWs 1 to 3. When once I.A. is dismissedas withdrawn, the writ petition becomes infructuous and accordinglythe writ petition is dismissed as redundant. No order as to costs.

__________________________

GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

_____________________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

24-12-2007

bsc