The High Court · 2025

defendant No. 3, in the Suit for Sipecific Performance O S. No. 68812022 during ", pendency of the present Writ Peti:ion. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue the directions to the Registrar General Honorable High court of Telangana at Hyderabad, withdrawal of judicial work from Honorable Sri P.B. Kiran Kumar. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan, Magrstrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District - Smt. P- Devi [Vlanasa, Juniqr Civil Judge-Cum-lrletropolitan, Magistrate at Chevella, R. R. District (Previcusly), ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-ll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Malkajgriri Court Medchal District, (Present) with immediate effect, until disposal of the present Writ Petition. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Sectiori 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Section to furnish the copy of the Orders dated 1 1.11.2024 and 19.11.2024, by way of granting the liberty for preferring the Special Leave Petition under Article 136, 142.1211, of the lndian Constitution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, by the Petitioner A. Ushi Reddy, Supreme Court Advocate. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.l.lSHl REDDY [PARTY-IN-PERSON] Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V.VENKATA MAYUR WRIT PETITION NO: 17086 OF 2024 Between: Sri Ushi Reddy Anugu, S/o. Sri Late. Parma Reddy Anugu, Aged about 50 years, Occupation. Advocak), PERMANENT Address. Fl/o. H. No. 7-4, Bayyanagudem Village, Mahalingapuram, Gram Panchayat, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, PRESENTLY R:/o. H. No. 16-2-14516417, (New 648) Anand Nagar colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500036, Telangana State ...PETITIONER AND

1. The Honourable Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, State of Telangana.

2. Smt. Murthi Parvathamma @ Chandra Mani, W/o. Murthi Ninga Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occupation. Housewife, Permanent R/o. H. No. 1-74, Huggelli Vrllage, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Presently Fl/o. H. No. 1-6- '106/1 , Plot No. '159, Sai Ram colony, Behind Sai Baba Temple, Zaheerabad - 502318, Sanga Reddy District, State of Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS Petition unde!'Adicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order. or Direction more particularly a Writ of Certiorari, declaring the inaction of the first respondent the Honourable Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Chevella, State of Telangana, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated O9lO5l2O24 in l-A. No. 585 oI 2024 in O.S. No. 68112022, passed by the Honourable Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan Magistrate. At Chevella. Ranga Reddy District, Non- following of the Rule of Law, ignoring the directions, guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia, by exceeding the jurisdiction, dismissing the said l.A. the Petition filed Under Order XX Rule 1 R/W Section 151 of C.P.C. Chapter Xll Rule 142 Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders by the Petitioner/ Plaintiff praying this Court to pass Judgement and Decree in the said Suit, as per Docket Order proceedings of the JCJ, first time 1810712023 lo 1710812023, Second lime 2310812023 to 2210912023, mandatory to pass the .iudgement within 30 days, but failed to do so, by the Honourable Presiding Officer Junior Civil Judge, at Chevella, Ranga Reddy Dist, failed to comply the Rule of Law, Order XX Rule 1 CPC and Chapter Xll Rule 142 Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, the Honourable High court has issued circular in ROC. No.4001/OP CELL -El2004 dated 30/08/2004, the Honourable High Court issued another circular vide ROC- No. 1708/201 1-Vigilance Cell, The impugned orders passed by arriving the wrong finding in para 7 and B of the Orders, denying to pass the judgement by the Presiding Officer of the Honourable Junior Civil Judge Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, intending to create, stranger, the third party interest not necessary parties to the suit, their presence is not required for affective, complete adjudlcation of the suit agreement, which is subject matter of the suit for specific performance filed by the present Petitioner is the praintiff, even if the properly which is the subiect matter of the agreement to sell is the ancestral property' non alienating member of joint family have no locus standi to conduct the suit for specific performance' in compliance of the Law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia is precedent and bindingaspertheArticle-l4lofthelndianConstitution'overtheHonourable Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate' at Chevella Ranga Reddy District, wilfully disobeying 2008 AIR (Supreme Court) 2134' 19S8 (1)ALT 496' 2023 ALT 1. ArR 2000 supreme courl 2740..1990 Supreme court 854.2003(4) ALT g AlR 2006 Bombav 134 199s(3) SCC 147 1996(10) SCC 53' 2005(51 RCR(Civil) 691. 1995(1) RRR 661 mo4 2o1O (10) SCC 512 1993 (2) SCC 740' Hence, seeking the disciplinary croceedings' against the Honourable Judge Sri P.B. Kiran Kumar, in view of the guidelines (2023(1) Ker L J 270) Mohammed Nazer tvl.P. v. Union Territory ol Lakshadweep (Kerala) Held that lndian penal Code, 1860 Sections 143' 14\' 188' 186' and 353 read with Section 149 - Criminal Procedure Code) 197:i Section '195 and 340 - Allegation of forgery against Chief Judicial IVlagistratr: - Sentence - Allegation against Chief Judicial Magistrate that he has not recorded evidence of investigating officer - Chief Judicial Magistrate Iorged evider-rce of investigating officer and he is liable to be proceed as per Section 340 of the Cr-P-C '1973 - Chief Judicial Magislrate committed serious misconduct and dereliction of duty - Disciplinary authority of chief Judiciar N/agistrate is Adrninistrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and should be placed under suspension pending enquiry) IANO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1';1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support c,f the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders, as Circle No 33B is not binding on the practicing Advocates of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad as well as Supreme Court of lndia by way of exempting tht: practicing Advocates as Party-in-Person ' IA NO: 2 oF 2024 Petition under Section 1lt1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support rrf the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant leave to me f ile the dock(d order dated Og'O8-2024 ' passed by the Hon'ble Ei Junror Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, in lA. No. 1640/2024 in OS No.68712022. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased For the reasons stated in the Letter dated 10.09.2024 in Lr.Dis.No. 896124, forwarded by the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella,'Ranga Reddy District praying this Hon'ble High Court to grant extension of time for further period of two (2) weeks to dispose the applications under Order 1 Rule '10 CPC in lA.No.543 of 2024 in OS.No.686 of 2022. lA.No.544 of 2024 in OS.No.687 of 2022 and lA.No.'1242 of 2024 in OS.No.688 ot 2022. lA NO: 5 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Section to furnish the copy of the Orders dated 1 1.11.2024 and 19.11.2024, by way of granting the liberty for preferring the Special Leave Petition under Article 136, 142, 1 29, of the lndian Constitution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, by the Petitioner A. Ushi Reddy, Supreme Court Advocate. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.USHI REDDY [PARTY-IN-PERSON] Counsel for the Respondents: --- WRIT PETITION NO: 17091OF 2024 Between: Sri Ushi Reddy Anugu, S/o. Sri Late. Parma Reddy Anugu, Aged about 50 years, Occupation. Advocate, PERTVIANENT Address. Rl/o. H. No. 7-4, Bayyanagudem Village, Ivlahalingapuram, Gram Panchayat, Shankarpally lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, PRESENTLY Rl/o. H. No. 16-2-14516417, (New 648) Anand Nagar colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500036, Telangana State AND 1 The Honble Junior Crvil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, State of Telangana. ...PETITIONER 2 Smt. Chiranri Sabitha, W/o Chiranji Madhav Reddy Aged ab^out 55 years Occuoation' Housewife, RJ:. Pulkal Village and Manoal' Sanga Keooy Distri;t, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affi(lavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or Direction more particularly a writ of certiorari, declaring the inaction of the first respondent the Honourable Junior CivilJudge,RangaReddyDistrict,atChevella,stateofTelangana'prayingto issue a writ of certiorari quashin,; the impugned order dated 09.05 2024 in IA. No.5B2of2024ino.S.No.6Set2o22,passedbytheHonourableJuniorCivil Judge-cum-tr/etropolitan Magistrzrte. At chevella. Ranga Reddy District, Non- following of the Rule of Law, ignoring the directions, guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme court of ln.d a, by exceeding the jurisdiction, dismissing the the Petition filed Under Order XX Rule '1 Rl/W Section 151 of C P C' said l.A Xll Rule 142 Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders by the Chapte r petitioner/ Plaintiff praying this court to pass Judgement and Decree in the said Suit, as per Docket order proceedings of the JCJ, first time 18.07.2023 to 17.o8.2023, Second time 23.08.2023 to 22.o9.2023, mandatory to paSS the judgement within 30 days, but failed to do so, by the Honourable Presiding officer Junior civil Judge, at chevella, Ranga Reddy Dist, failed to comply the Rule of Law, order XX Rule 1 OPC and Chapter Xll Rule 142 Civil Rules of practice and circular orders, the Honourable High court has issued circular in ROC. No.4OO1/oP cELL -E/2004 dated 30.08.2004, the Honourable High court issued another circular vide Roc. No. 1708/201 1- Vigilance cell, The impugned orderspassedbyarrivingthewrongfindinginparaTand8oftheorders' denying to pass the judgement by the Presiding officer of the Honourable Junior civil Judge chevella, Ranga Reddy District, intending to create, stranger, the third party interest not necessa.y parties to the suit, their presence is not requiredforaffective,completeadjudicationofthesuitagreement,whlchis subject matter of the suit for specific performance filed by the present Petitioner is the Plaintiff, even if the property which is the subject matter of the agreement tosellistheancestralproperty,llonalienatingmemberofjointfamilyhaveno locus standi to conduct the suit lor specific performance, in compliance of the t "&_ Law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia is precedent and ', binding as per the Article .141 of the lndian Constitution, over the Honourable Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, at Chevella Ranga Reddy District, wilfully disobeying 2008 AIR (Supreme Court) 2134, 1998 (1) ALT 496, 2023 ALT 1. AIR 2000 Supreme Couft 2740. 1990 Supreme Court 854. 2003(4) ALT'9. AIR 2006 Bombay 134. 199s(3) SCC 147. 1996(10) SCC 53. 2005(5) RCR(Civil) 691 1995(1) RRR 660 2004. 2010 (10) SCC 512. 1993 (2) SCC 740. Hence, seeking the disciplinary proceedings, against the Honourable Judge Sri P.B. Kiran Kumar, in view of the guidelines (2023(1) Ker L.J.270) Mohammed Nazer M.P. v. Union Territory of Laftshadweep (Kerala) Held that. lndian penal Code, 1860 Sections 143, 147,188, 186, and 353 read with Section '149 -Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section '195 and 340 -Allegation of forgery against Chief Judicial l\ilagistrate - Sentence - Allegation against Chief Judicial Magistrate that he has not recorded evidence qf. investigating officer - Chief Judicial Magistrate forged evrdence of investigating officer and he is liable to be proceed as per Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 - Chief Judicial tvlagistrate committed serious misconduct and dereliction of duty - Disciplinary authority of Chief Judicial Magistrate is Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and should be placed under suspension pending enquiry). lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue the appropriate directions to the Registrar Vigilance High court of Telangana at Hyderabad T. S. to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Sri P.B. Kiran Kumar, Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, passed orders in l.A. No. 582 of 2024 in O.S. No. 686 of 2022 daled 09.05.2024, the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Smt. P. Devi Manasa, Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan [Magistrate, Chevella Ranga Reddy District, passed orders in l.A. No. 2006 of 2022 in O.S. No. 686 of 2022 daled 23.01 .2023. t IA NO:2 oF 2024 petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to eave to me file the docket order dated 09-08-2024' passed by the Hon'ble Civil iudge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella' in lA No '164'1/2024 in OS in the grant I Junior No.68712022 IA NO: 30 F 2024 petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased For the reasons stated in the Letter dated 10 09 2024 in Lr'Dis No' 896124' forwarded by the Junior Civil Judge' Chevella' Ranga Reddy District praying this Hon'ble High Court to grant exten:;ion of time for further period of two (2) weeks to dispose the applications und6? Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in lA No 543 of 2024 in OS.No.686 of 2022 lA No 544 of 2024 in OS No'687 of 2022 and lA No 1242 of 2024 in OS.No.688 oI 2022' IA NO :5 oF 2024 petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Section to furnish th'3 copy of the Orders dated 1 1'11 2024 and 1g.11.2024, by way of permitting the liberty for preferring the Special Leave Petition under Article 136' 142' 1i29' of the lndian Constitution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia' by the Petitioner A Ushi Reddy' Supreme Court Advocate. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A'USHI REDDY [PARW-IN-PERSON] Counsel for the ResPondents: '-' WRIT PETITI ON NO :1709 3 oF 2024 Between: Sri Ush years, Bayyan Mandal i Reddv Anugu' S/: Sri Late Parma Reddy Anugu Aoed about 50 p,#$,L4[:rth;qEffiffi $*#'if isfli+r;'#-atn'i1 -Ranga ReddY District' tr , I 16- 2- 145t64t7, (New 648) Anand Nagar colony' Malakpet' Hyderabad - 500036, Telangana State' ..PETITIONER AND 1 2 TheHonourableJuniorcivilJudge,RangaReddyDistrictatchevella'state of Telangana' Smt. Chamala Anusuja vears. Occ Housewtle heddy District, T. S' @-A^'fl Y,#8","X"i]l,X8Jifl,[?t'i'^An"%Xf 'R:'"3: ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of l.he Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly a Writ of Certiorari, declaring the inaction of the first respondent the Honourable Junior Civil Judge' Ranga Reddy Dist'rjct' at Chevella' State of Telangana' praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09/05/2024 in l A' No. 5BB ot 2024in o. S. Nd. 6S8/2022, passed by the Honbre Junior civir Judge- Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate At Chevella' Ranga Reddy District' Non- following of the Rule of Law, ignoring the directions' guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia, by exceeding the iurisdiction' dismissing the said l A' the Petition filed Under Order XX Rule 1 R/W Section 151 of C P C Chapter Xll Rule 142 Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders by the Petitioner/ Plaintiff praying this Court to pass Judgement and Decree in the said Suit' as per Docket Order proceedings of the JCJ' first time 1810712023 to 17 08 2023 ' Second time 23tOBt2O23 to 2210912023' mandatory to pass the judgement within 30 days' but failed to do so, by the Honourable Presiding Officer Junior Civil Judge' at Chevella, Ranga Reddy Dist' failed to comply the Rule of Law' Order XX Rule 1 CPC and Chapter Xll Rule 142 Civtl Rules of Practice and Circular Orders' the Honourable High court has issued circular in ROC' No' 4001/OP CELL - E/2004 dated 30/0g/2004, the Honourabre High court issued another circurar vide Roc' No. 1708/201 1- Vigirance cet, The impugned orders passed by arriving the wrong finding in para 7 and 8 of the Orders' denying to pass the iudgement by the Presiding Officer of the Honourable Junior Civil Judge Chevella' Ranga Reddy District' intending to create' stranger' the third party interest not necessary parties to the suit' their presence is not required for affective' comprete adjudication of the suil agreement, which is subject matter of the suit for specific performance filed by ihe present petitioner is the plaintiff, even if the property which is the subject m,ltter of the agreement to se, is the ancestrar property, non arienating member of joint famiry have no rocus srandi to conduct the suit for specific performanc(-', in compriance of the Law decrared by the Honourabre supreme court of rnriia is precedent and binding as per the A,*icre 141 0f the rndian constitution, over the Honbre Junior civir Judge- cum- Metroporitan Magistrate, at cheverd Ranga Reddy District, wirfury disobeying 2008 AIR (Supreme Courl) 2134,1993 (1) ALT 496, 2023 ALr i AtR 2000 supreme courl 2740'1990 Suprenre court g54 2oo3(4)ALT 9 ArR 2006 Bombay 134 1995(3) SCC 147 1996(10) S;CC 53 2005(s) RCR(Crvit) 69j 1995(1) RRR 660 2004 2010 (10) scc 512 tg6:12.r SCC 740 Hence, seekrng the disciprinary proceedings, against the Honouratrre Judge sri p. B. Kiran Kumar, in view of the guiderines (2023(1) Ker L. J. 270) Ivrohammed Nazer M. p. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep (Kerala) Held that lndian penat Code, 1860 Sections 143, 141, 188, 186, and 353 read with Ser;tion .149 _ Criminal procedure Code, 1973 Section 'l 95 and 340 - Allegation ,tf forgery against Chief Judrcial Magistrate _ Sentence - Alegation against chiel Judiciar Magistrate that he has not recorded evidence of investigating officer - chief Judiciar Magistrate forged evidence of investigating officer and he is riabre to be proceed as per section 340 0f the cr. P c. 1973 - chief Judicial Magistrate committed serious misconduct and dereliction of duty - Disciplinary authority of chief Judicial lvagistrate is Administrator, Union Territory of L-akshadweep and shourd be praced under suspension pending enquiry). lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under Section 151 ctrc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to issue the appropriate directions kr the Registrar Vigirance High court of Telangana at Hyderabad r.s to initiate the disciprinary proceedings against the Honble Junior Civil Judge Sri p.ll.Kiran Kumar, Junior Civil Judge Cum Metropolitan lVlagistrate, passed ord,:rs in lA.No.5g8 of 2024 in OS.No.6gg of 2022 dated 0g 05-2024. the Honbre Junior civir Judge Smt p.Devi 'Vahasa. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella Ranga Reddy District, passed orders lA.No.2010o 2022 in OS.NO.68B ol 2022 dated 23.01 .2023. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to me file the docket order dated 09-08-2024, passed by the Hon'ble Junior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, in lA. No. 164312024 in OS No.68812022, and pass lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased for the reasons staled in the Latter dated 10.09.2024 in Lr.Dis.No. 8g'l24, forwarded by the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District praying this Hon'ble High Court to grant extension of time for further period of two (2) weeks to dispose the applications under Order 'l Rule '10 CPC in lA.No.543 of 2024 in OS.No.686 ot 2022. lA.No.544 of 2024 in OS.No.687 of 2022 and 1A.No. 1242 of 2024 in OS.No.6BB of 2022. lA NO: 5 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lo direct the Section to furnrsh the copy of the Orders dated 11.11.2024 and 19.1'l .2024, by way of granting the liberty for preferring the Special Leave Petition under Article 136, 142, 129, of the lndian Constitution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, by the Petitioner A. Ushi Reddy, Supreme Court Advocate. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.USHI REDDY [PARTY-IN-PERSON] Counsel for the Respondents: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 27841OF 2024 Between: Sri Ushi Reddy Anugu, S/o. Sri Late. Parma Reddy Anugu, Aged about 50 years, Occupation. Advocale, PERMANENT Address. Rl/o. H. No. 7-4, Bayyanagud6m Village, Mahalingapuram, 9ram Panchayat, _Stanka.rpally Maridal, Ranga Redcly District, Telangana State, PRESENTLY R:/o. H. No. 16-2-14516417, (New 648) ,\nand Nagar colony, N4alakpet, Hyderabad - 500036, Telangana State ...PETITIONER The Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, State of Telangana. Sri P-8. Kiran Kumar, Junior bivil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan, Ivlagistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, State of Telangana. The Hon'ble Smt. P. Devi Nrlanasa, Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan, lvlaqistrate at Chevella, R. R. District (Previously), ll Addl Junior Civil Judge- Cuh-ll Addl. Metropolitan lvlagistrate, Malkajgiri Court fVledchal District, (Present) State of Telanganq. Anugu Pushpalatha, Wo. Subhakar Reddy, Aged about _33 . years, Occ. Hou6ewife, R/o. H. No., 7-4, tlayannagud em, Shankarpally, Dhobipet, Ranga Reddy, Telangana 501203. Smt. Murthi Parvathamma @ Chandra Mani, W/o. Murthi Ninga Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occupation. l-lousewife, Permanent Fyo H No. 1-74, Huggelli Village, Ziheerabad Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Presently R/o. H. No. 1-6- 106/l , Plot No. 159, Sai Ram colony, Behind Sai Baba Temple, Zaheerabad' 502318, Sanga Reddy Districl, State of Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS AND 1 2 3 4 5 Petition under Article 226 o' the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidrrvit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly a Writ of Certiorari, declaring the inaction o'' the first respondent the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Chevella, State of Telangana, praying to issue a Writ of Ce(iorari quashing the lA. 544/2024 dated 18.09.2024, filed by third party stranger non alienating person Uro. '1 Rule 10 CPC, in the Suit for Specific Performance in O.S. No. 68712022 in compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions, NON ALIENATING MEI]IBERS OF JOINT FAIVILY HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI TO CONDUCT THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORTV1ANCE IN CON/PLIANCE OF THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS PRECEDENT AND BINDING AS PER THE ARTICLE 141 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, OVER THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM METROPOLITAN TUAGISTRATE AT CHEVELLA RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, ".WILFULLY DISOBEYING 2008 AIR (Supreme Court) 2'134, 1998 (1)ALT 496, 2023 ALT 1, AIR 2000 Supreme Courl 2740, 1990 Supreme Court 854, 2003(4) ALT 9, AIR 2006 Bombay 134, 1995(3) SCC 147, 1996(10) SCC 53. 2005(51 RCR (Civil) 697, 1995 (1) RRR 660,2004.2010 (10) SCC 512, 1993 (2) SCC 740, oblique motive, for some extraneous consideration while functioning as junior civil judge Chevella - 2022 (4) ALT 15 (TS) in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana amounts to the contempt of court. lt is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdictioq. lf the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on r.nerits. lf the court does not reject the petition on that ground the court would be failing in its duty. ln fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR ABUSING THE PROCESS OF THE COURT (Para 10) - kindly be initiated the contempt proceedings against the Hon'ble Sri P.B. Kiran Kumar, Junior Civil Judge-Cum- tvletropolitan, Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District - Smt. P. Devi Manasa, Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan, Magistrate at Chevella, R. R. District (Previously), ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-ll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Malkajgiri Court Medchal District, (Present) -Contempt of Courts Act, '1971 , Section 1 1 and 12 - Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge committed serious misconduct and dereliction of duty - Disciplinary authority of Metropolitan, tt/agistrate is Administrator -Constitution of lndia, Article 2'1 5 - in Para 13 - wilfully violating the principles of Natural Justice, provrsions of Specific Relief Act, 1963, The petitioner's Suits in O.S. Nos. 687 and 686, 688 are unnecessarily kept pending by the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge R.R. District at Chevella intending to create third party interest by misusing the power it amounts to the abuse of process of law, wilfully disobeying the Hon'ble Division Bench directions dated 11.07.2024 in W.P. Nos. 17086, 17091, 17093 of 2024. fHE TRIAL COURT MAY IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE PENDING APPLICATIONS UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 1O CPC EXPEDITIOUSLY, PREFERABLE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PRODUCTION OF COPY OF THIS t ORDER, in compliance of (2O2O, 2 SCC 1 73, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of -.lndia held that. To ensure purity and administration of justice, the least that is required is to prevent any ineligible candidate to secure appointment on the Post of Civil Judge (Entry Level). lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, tfe High Court may be pleased to issue the directions to the Registr;ar General Hon'ble High court of Telangana at Hyderabad, withdrawal of judicial rvorfi from Hon'ble Sri P.B. Kiran Kumar, Junior Civil Judge-Cum-[\,4etropolitan, Itllzrgistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District - Smt. P. Devi [V1anasa, Junior t]ivil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan, Magistrate at Chevella, R. R District (Previously), H Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-ll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate IValkajgiri Court Medchal District, (Present) with immediate effect, until disposal of the present Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petitron under Section 151 3PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of tl-re petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings of the orders dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge-Cum-tvletropolitan, Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy Distnct rn l A No. 544 of 2024, filed by Anugu Pushpalatha u/o. i rule 10 CPC, third party, stranger, NON ,qLIENATING MEIVBERS OF JOINT FAMILY HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI TO CONDUCT THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORIVANCE IN COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS PRECEDENT AND BINDING AS PER THE ARTICLE 141 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, OVER THE 'JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM ME-ROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT CHEVELLA RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, WILFULLY DISOBEYING 2Q08 AIR (Supreme Coun) 2134, 1998 (1) ALT 496, 2023 ALT 1, AIR 2000 Supreme Coutt 2740, 1990 Supreme Court 854, 2003(4) ALT 9, AIR 2006 Bombay 134, 1995(3) SCC 147, 1996(10) SCC 53. 2005(51 RCR (Civil) 697, 1995 (1)RRR 660, 2004. 2010 (10) SCC 512, 1993 (2) SCC 740, she is non alienating person, as a proposed defendantNo.3,inthesuitforSpecificPerformanceo.S.No.68Tl2o22during '' pendency of the present Writ Petition. A NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under section '1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to directtheSectiontofurnishthecopyoftheordersdatedll.ll.2024and 19.11.2024, by way of granting the liberty for preferring the Special Leave Petition under Article 136, 142, 129, of the lndian constitution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, by the Petitioner A' Ushi Reddy, Supreme Court Advocate. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.USHI REDOY [PARTY'IN-PERSONI Counsel for the Respondent No:4: SRI V.VENKATA MAYUR WRIT PETITION NO: 27849 0F 2024 Between: Sri Ushi Reddy Anugu, S/o. Sri Late Parma-Reddy Anug!' Aged about 50 v"ro, O"irp6tion. {dvoCate, PERMANEN^T Address FJo H No T-4' Gram Panchavat' .Slankarpallv 6"rlylnr-g"r"olr'Viirage, Mrh1fil; hansa ReddVDistrict. T"elingana State' PRESENTIY,,ry9 l^ry" 16-2-1451641l-, (New'648) Anand Nagar colony, Ivlalakpet' HyoeraDao - 500036, Telangana State -Minatingapuram, ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Honble Junior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at chevella, State of 2 4 5 Telangana. The Honble sri P.B. Kiran Kumar, Junior civil Judge-cum-ltiletropolitan, lrtrgi.Gte at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District' State of Telangana' The Honble Smt. P. Devi Manasa, Junior Civil Judge-Cum.Metropolitan, l/aoistrate at Chevella, R. R. District (Previously). ll Addl Junior ulvrl Juoge- c;xl_ti' Ad;i -rtl"i.6ritin 'Masistrate, Matraj!iri court Medchal District, (Present) State of Telangana. Anuqu Pushpalatha, W/o. Subhakar Reddy,^Aged about-33.years' Occ' iiliiB"*ir", f,o. n. uo. 7-4, Bavannagudem, shankarpallv, Dhobipet' Ranga Reddy, Telangana 501 203. Smt. Chiranii Sabitha, W/o. Chiranji Madhav Reddy, Aged about 55 years' 6'.ir#iii,1.''n"o:rdililii",' nvo. pui(ai Virtase and'Maidal, sanga Reddv Distriat, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 <>f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the .,circumstances stated in the afficlavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Orcler or Direction more particularly a Writ of Certiorari, declaring the inaction of the first respondent the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Chevella, State of Telangana, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the lA. 543/2024 dated 18.O9.2024, filed by third party stranger non alienating person L /o. 1 Rule '1 0 CPC, in the Suit for Specific Performance in O.S No. 68612022, in compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions, NON ALIENATING MEhIBERS OF JOINT FAMILY HAVE NO LOCUS STANDT TO CONDUCT THE SUIT FOR SPECTFTC PERFORI/ANCE lN COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS PRECEDENT AND BINDING AS PER THE ARTICLE 141 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, OVER THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.CUN/ METROPOLITAN IVAGISTRATE, AT CHEVELLA RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, WILFULLY DISOBEYING 2008 AIR (Supreme Court) 2'134, 1998 (1)ALr 496, 2023 ALT 1, AIR 2000 Supr6me Coun2740, 1990 Supreme Court 854, 2003(4) ALT 9, AIR 2006 Bombay 134, 1e95(3) SCC 147, 1996(10) SCC 53.2005(51 RCR (Civil) 697, 1995 (1)RRR 660,2004.2010 (10) SCC 512, 1993 (2) SCC 740, oblique motive. for some extraneous consideration while functioning as junior civil judge Chevella - 2022 (t.) ALT 15 (TS) in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana amounts to the contempt of court. lt is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place rn equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. lf the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but stirtes them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has rnherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. lf the court does not reject the petition on that ground the court would be failing in its duty. ln fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for CO\TEMPT OF COURT FOR ABUSING THE PROCESS OF THE COURT (Pera 10) - kindly be initiated the contempt proceedings against the Hon'ble Sri P.B. Kiran Kumar, Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan, lVlagistrate at Cheve:lla, Ranga Reddy District - Smt. P. Devi Manasa, Junror Civil Judge-Cum-ll4etropolrtan, Magtstrate at Chevella, R. R. District (Previously), ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-ll Addl. lvletropolitan Magistrate Malkajgiri Court Medchal District, (Present) -Contempt of Courts Act, -, 197'l , Section 11 and 12 - Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge committed serious misconduct and dereliction of duty - Disciplinary authority of Metropolitan, Magistrate is Administrator -Constitution of lndia, Article 215 - in Para '13 - wilfully violating the principles of Natural Justice, provisions of Specifrc Relief Act, 1963, The petitioner's Suits in O.S. Nos. 687 and 686, 688 are unnecessarily kept pending by the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge R.R. District at Chevella intending to create third party interest. by misusing the power it amounts to the abuse of process of taw, wilfully disobeying the Hon'ble Division Bench directions dated '1 1.07.2024 in W.P.. Nos. 17086, 17091, 17093 ot 2024. fHE TRIAL COURT MAY IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE PENDING APPLICATIONS UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 1O CPC EXPEDITIOUSLY, PREFERABLE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS FROIV1 THE DATE OF PRODUCTION OF COPY OF THIS ORDER, in compliance ot (2020) 2 SCC 173, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia held that. To ensure purity and administration of justice, the least that is required is to prevent any in6ligible candidate to secure appointment on the Post of Civil Judge (Entry Level). lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue the directions to the Registrar General Hon'ble High court of Telangana at Hyderabad, withdrawal of judicial work from Hon'ble Sri P.B. Kiran Kumar, Junior Civil Judge-Cum-ltr'letropolitan, Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District - Smt. P. Devi Manasa, Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan, Magistrate at Chevella, R. R. District (Previously), ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-ll Addl. Metropolitan It/agistrate Malkajgiri Court Medchal District, (Present) with immediate effect, until disposal of the present Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings of the orders dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge-Cum-lr/etropolitan, Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in l A. No. 543 of 2024, filed by Anugu Pushpalatha u/o. 1 rule 10 -. CPC, third party, stranger, NON ALIENATING MEMBERS OF JOINT FAMILY HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI TO CONDUCT THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORIVIANCE IN COIMPLIANCE OF THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREIVE COUIIT OF INDIA IS PRECEDENT AND BINDING AS PER THE ARIICLE 141 OT: THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, OVER THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT CHEVELLA RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, WILFULLY DISOBEYING 2008 AIR (Supreme Court) 2134, 1998 (1)ALT 496, 2023 ALf 1, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2740, 1990 Supreme Court 854, 2003(4) AlT I, AIR 2006 Bombay 134, 1995(3) SCC 147, 1996(10) SCC s3. 2005(51 RCR (Civil) 697, 1995 (1)RRR 660,2004. 20'10 (10) SCC 512, 1993 (2) SCC 740, she is non alienating person, as a proposed defendant No. 3, in the Suit for Slrecific Performance O.S. No. 68612022 during pendency of the present Writ Petition. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of tre petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Section to furnrsh the copy of the Orders dated 1 1 .11.2024 and 19.11.2024, by way of permitting the liberty for preferring the Special Leave Petition under Article 136, 142, 12t), of the lndian Constitution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, by the Petitioner A. Ushi Reddy, Supreme Court Advocate. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.tlSHl REDDY [PARTY-IN-PERSON] Counsel for the Respondent No,4: SRI V.VENKATA MAYUR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,i I k THE HOI{OURABLE SRI JI'STTCE P.SAM TOSIIY AITD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSII|G RAO I{ANDIKONDA Writ Petition No.27838. 17086, 17091, L7093.27a4L & 27a49 ol2o24 coMMON ORDER: ftter Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Since the issue arising in the instant batch of writ petitions is one and the same, we proceed to decide the batch of writ petitions by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. A. Ushi Reddy (Parfy-in-Person) in all the writ petitions; and Mr.V. Venkata Ma5rur, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in Writ Petition Nos.27838, 27841 and 27849 of 2024. The petitioner, as pa-rty-in-person, is representing his case personally and is appearing as Party-in-Person in all the writ petitions.

3. The instant batch of writ petitions is filed by the same petitioner with similar, if not, identical reliefs.

4. For convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No'27838 of 2024 are discussed hereunder. J I 2 sp-27834_2024&batch PSK,J & NI{R,J 5. The petitioner in th'l instant writ petition seems to be aggrieved of the order dated 18.09.2024 in I.A.No. 1242 of 2024 in O.S.No.688 of 2022 pas;sed by the Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chevella, Ranga Reddy district lfor short, 'the impugned order').

6. The impugned order is one where the Trial Court has allowed the application fibd by respondent No.4 herein, viz., I.A.No.1242 of 2024 in O.S.No.688 of 2022, i.e.. an application filed by respondent No.zl. (implead petitioner / proposed defendant before the frial Court) under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to implead the respondent No.4 as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.688 of 2022.

7. Initially, the suit O.S.No.688 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner herein (plaintiff) rrnder Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for specific performance of an Agree.ment of Sale, for a permanent injunction, and to declare ttLe plaintiff ald defendalt as Class-I legal heirs. 3 wg:27A3A-2O24&batch PSK'., & NNR'J when the instant batch bf .r,attEri iirie up-Ior hiAfifiE'Itf 8 admission on 11.lL.2O24 along with Civil Revision Petition Nos.717, 719 and 72O of 2023, a learned Division Bench of this Court has made a categorical observation that the instant batch of writ petitions filed by the petitioner.under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable, and that the petitioner (then as party-in-person) may file an appropriate application for modiltcation / conversion of the batch of writ petitions. For ready reference, the Docket Order dated Ll.ll.2}24 passed by the learned Division Bench is extracted as under, viz., "Si A. Ushi Reddg, Partg-in-Perso4 is present- He prags for and undertokes to delete tte name of respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the onay of parties. He slall delete their names u-tithin seuen days. Duing the course oJ heaing' he submits that order dated. 18-O9-2O24 (Aruentre P-3) i's the subject matter of chotlenge. The proper remedg for the petitioner(s) is to file Ciuit Reuision Petition and not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India- The partg-in- person mdA file an appropiote application for modification / anuersion of tle Petitions. List on 19.1 1.2O24." :24:: wp_27838_2O24&batch PSK,J & NITR.J 9. Subsequently, the ba.tch of writ petitions carne up for hearing on 19.11.2024 befrrre the sarne Division Bench which had earlier passed the aborre order on 1L.11.2O24. Again, the Iearned Division Bench reiterated that the proper recourse for the petitioner is to move an appropriate application seeking for conversion of the instant batch of writ petitions into Civil Reyision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as is the nomenclature of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India given by this Court under the Rules. lO. For ready reference, tne Docket Order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court is reproduced as under, viz., "Heard Si A. Ushi Re'ddg, partA-in-person Partg-in-person subnits that the petitioner ha^s assailed the impugned order pa.ssecl bg the Triol Court in thi^s batch of petition-s. The petitions are filed under Articles 226 ond 227 of the Constitution of India. Vlten the order of tiol Court b called in question in a petition. filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the matters are lbted before this Court as Ciuil Reuision Petitions. Tte petitioner b acccrdinglg directed to file appropriate application for anuersion of tlLese mallers into Ciuil Reuision -J 5 wp_27E3E-2O24&batch PSK,J &NNR,J Httions, sa tlat the ndErs nag Le l&edbehethzapp@prldl; BencL Let such application be f.led u.tithin seuen dags. Li.st thereofier with CRP Nos.717, 719 and 72O of 2023." I 1. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing on

03.03.2025 by this Bench. On that day, the parq/-in-person took time from the Court seeking liberty to assail the earlier order passed by the learned Division Bench on 19.11.2024 (reproduced as above). Thereafter, the matters were posted for hearing to 17.O3.2O25. L2. In the interregnum, the petitioner herein preferred Special kave Petition before the Hon'lcle Supreme Court vide Special lrave Petition (Civil) Diary No.3649 of 2025 assailing the order dated 19.11.2024 in Writ Petition No.17O93 of 2024 passed by the learned Dirrision Bench of this Court. Vide order dated O7.O3.2O25, a learned Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Ieave Petition along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.6625 of 2025 with the following observation, viz., '?his is a need.less litigation, as the High Court lns merelg directed the petitioner to file appropriate applicotion(s) for conuersion of hi.s uLit petitions filed under Article 226 of tle Con-stitrttion of India into Ciuil Reuision Petitiorts under Article I I It l1 lHn 6 sp.27Aga-2o2rt&batch PSK,J & NNR,J 227 of the Con stitution of India. Tle directions may be complied utith by the petitioner. Recording the afore-said, tle special leaue petitions, u.thich are dekctiue, are dismi.ss,zd-"

13. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for hearing on

11.06.2025. The petitioner (as party-in-person) submitted that, in compliance of the earlier order passed by this High Court and which has also been conlirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court, he has filed separate Civil Flevision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India io:r assailing the impugned order which is under challenge in the ba.tch of writ petitions

14. It may be noted thzrt the order passed by the ea-rlier Division Bench of this Court, i.e., 19.11.2024, was not for filing separate Civil Revision Pelitions but with a direction to the petitioner to file appropriate: application for converting the batch of writ petitions into Civil Revision Petitions. But, the petitioner chose to file separate Civil Revision Petitions for the reasons best known to him, and accordingly six Civil Revision Petitions were filed by him in this Court uide Civtl Revision Petition Nos.1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990and l99l of2025. 7 wp.2783E_2Oz4&batch PSK,J & N R,J 15. On 11.06.2025, when the batch of writ petltidflS*tfer6 taken up for hearing, the petitioner (as party-in-person) submitted that as he had already availed the remedy of frling Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and that hearing in the batch of writ peLitions may be deferred for the moment so that petitioner can pursue the Revisions before the Bench which is seized of the aforesaid batch of Civit Revision Petitions. Accordingly, the matter was posted to

16.06.2025. On 16.06.2025, when the matter was taken up for hearing by this Bench, the petitioner submitted that he has approached the Court of the Honble The Acting Chief Justice with a prayer to tag the aforesaid Civil Revision Petitions with the batch of writ petitions for analogous hearing. This Bench granted seven (07) days' time to the petitioner for getting appropriate orders from the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice on the representation that he has made, or else the matter would be fixed on 23.06.2025 on which date the petitioner shall argue the case on the question of maintainability of the batch of writ petitions particularly in the light of the other Civil Revision Petitions tleat were already filed by the petitioner. i i I it. $ E wp_27434_2024&batch PS;K,J & NNR,J 16. On 23.06.2025, when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner prayed for time. Accordingly, the matters were adjourned to 30.06.2025, and again to O7.O7.2O25. On

07.O7.2025, the matters were again posted to 14.07.2025.

17. On 14.07.2025, when the matters were taken up hnally for hearing by this Bench, the petitioner has produced before this Court an order passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 of 2025, dated 27.06.2025, whereby the learned Division Bench of this court wa6 ple:rsed to dispose of the said Revisions in the light of the submissiorrs made by the petitioner therein. lE. For ready reference, the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990and 1991 of 2025,dated27.06.2025,is extracted as under, viz., "Wh-en the matters are taken up for heaing, learned counsel appeaing for the p<ztitioners had informed the Court that the issue roi-sed in the present Revision Petitior* l'Ll;.s alreody been ctullenged in a batch cf Wit Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.27838, 17086, 17091, 17093, 27B41 and 27849 of 2O24, which are presentlg pending before tlis Court. Thc leanted counsel hod fufther submitted thflt the cause in tlwse Revi-sion Petitions does ..o.. vP 27$ga 2o24&batch PSK,J & NNR,J not iiTuiue for adjudi&fioif 'and lfiEiEfciti, ihb' pA?.ioft:F|E*' "' permitted to Wrsue their remedies in the said Wit Petitiorts pending before this Court.

2. Recording tle aboue Reubion Petitions are closed submissions, the Present Ciuil There sholl be no order as to costs. "

19. Based upon the said factual matrix of the case, this Bench upon putting a query to the'petitioner (party-in-person) as to how the instant writ petitions under Article 226 would be maintainable, more particularly when this High Court itself in these batch of writ petitions has directed the petitioner to move an approPriate petition for conversion of the batch of writ petitions into civil revision petitions, the petitioner vehemently contended that as regards the observation and direction given by this Court for moving appropriate applications for conversion of the writ petitions into civil revision petitions he has already done itbynlingcivilrevisionpetitions;thatthosecivilrevision petitionshavealreadybeendisposedofbyalearnedDivision Bench of this Cowrt uide order dated 27'06'2025 in Civil Revision Petition Nos.1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 of 2025;andtherefore,theinstantbatchofwritpetitionshaveto be entertained by this Bench on merits in exercise of powers h t ::10:: sp_27E34_2O24&batch PSK,J & NNR,J conferred under the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issualce of a Wrtt of Certiorai-

20. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated O7.O3.2O25 in Special l,eave Petition (Civil) Diary No.3649 of 2025 had given a direcLion to the petitioner to comply r,vith the order witJ. regard to filing arl appropriate application for conversion of the writ petitions liled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India into Civil Revision Petitions under Article'227 of the Constitution of India. But, the petitioner, instead of complying with the said order, has refused to take appropriate steps for conversion of the writ petitions liled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India into Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 cf the Constitution of India.

21. Therefore, in the aforesaid factual backdrop, we are compelled to take a stand that the instant batch of writ petitions are not maintainable as h:rs been already held by a learned Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 11.11.2024 and

19.11.2024, and also by the. Hon'ble Supreme Court 'ride order :: 11:: -' dated O7.O3.2O25 passetl. ih' Specidl LeaVe PetitiSh wp 27E38-2024&batch PSK,J & IINR,J -[CiVilfTfrdrf No.3649 of 2025.

22. Another reason why this Bench is not inclined to entertain the instant batch of writ petitions is that, taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner who had entered appearance before the Division Bench hearing the batch of Civil Revision Petitions, and during the course of hearing the petitioner had categorically made a statement that nothing survives for adjudication in the batch of Civil Revision Petitions, and therefore he is not interested to pursue the same- The above observations made by the petitioner in the batch of Civil Revision Petitions can be visualized from the order passed by the learned Division Bench in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1986, 1987, 1988, f989, 1990 and 1991 of 2025, dated 27.06.2025, wherein all those Revisions were disposed of basing upon the submissions of the petitioner itself. This by itself establishes ( I that the petitioner was not inclined to argue in the Civil Revision Petitions rather was bent upon to argue the matter on merits in the present batch of writ petitions. Further, when the learned Division bench of this Court had, at the first instance vide its t.- i,L2i. sp_27AOA 2t2ul&batch PSK,J & NNR,J order dated ll.ll.2024 arld 19.11.2024, made it clear that the batch of writ petitions v/ould not be maintainable and that petitioner should file appropriate application for converting the instant batch of Writ Petitions into Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner did not chose to do so rather he chose to file separate Civil Revision Petitions u'hich were disposed by the Division Bench as per his own submissions

23. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Bench is left with no other option but to dismiss the instant writ petitions on tJle very ground of non-maintainabi,tity of the instant batch of writ petitions. No costs.

24. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL D Ury REGISTRAR r sEcTtoN oFFtcER I One CC to SRI A.USHT REDDY, TPARTY-IN-PEdSONI One CC to SRI V.VENKATA IMAYUR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies \ To, I 2 J BSR GJP 1 HIGH COURT DATED: 1710712025 COMMON ORDER ( oR THE S f4 ',) () f \..+ '.,\ ,rr \' 2 4 ,t1.1t 2625 t\ .f,11 WP.No. 27838,17086, 17091, 17093, 27841 & 27849 0F 2024 DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS