Writ petitions were deemed not maintainable due to failure to comply with prior court orders for conversion into civil revision petitions.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petition No.27838, 17086, 17091, 17093, 27841 &

27849 of 2024 COMMON ORDER:(per 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 (Party-in-Person) in all the writ petitions; and Mr.V. Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in Writ Petition Nos.27838, 27841 and 27849 of 2024. The petitioner, as party-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.

::2::

5. The petitioner in the 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 passed by the Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chevella, Ranga Reddy district (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

6. The impugned order is one where the Trial Court has allowed the application filed 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.4 (implead petitioner / proposed defendant before the Trial 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) under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale, for a permanent injunction, and to declare the plaintiff and defendant as Class-I legal heirs.

::3::

8. When the instant batch of matters came up for hearing for admission on 11.11.2024 along with Civil Revision Petition Nos.717, 719 and 720 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 modification / conversion of the batch of writ petitions. For ready reference, the Docket Order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Division Bench is extracted as under, viz., “Sri A. Ushi Reddy, Party-in-Person, is present. He prays for and undertakes to delete the name of respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the array of parties. He shall delete their names within seven days. During the course of hearing, he submits that order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P.3) is the subject matter of challenge. The proper remedy for the petitioner(s) is to file Civil Revision Petition and not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The party-in- person may file an appropriate application for modification /

conversion of the petitions.

List on 19.11.2024.”

::4::

9. Subsequently, the batch of writ petitions came up for hearing on 19.11.2024 before the same Division Bench which had earlier passed the above order on 11.11.2024. Again, the learned 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 Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as is the nomencl