1. Learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Mayur Reddy, representing learned counsel Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, appears for the appellants.

Learned counsel Ms. C.Sunitha, representing learned counsel Ms. Thakur Roopa Singh, appears for respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners.

Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appears for respondents No.4 to 6.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed by the appellants seeking leave to assail the interim order dated 13.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P.No.22200 of 2026, which reads as under:

               “Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar circumstances this Court passed order dated 17.10.2025 in W.P.No.31563 of 2025, and following the same orders dated 02.07.2026 and 03.07.2026 were passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20655 and 20789 of 12026, and prayed to grant similar order in favour of petitioners herein.

               Hence, there shall be interim direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to reconsider the building permission application of the petitioners in File No.016918/CMC/00535/SWBP/SLP2/2026 dated 03.04.2026 in respect of the property bearing Plot No.68 admeasuring 894.50 square yards in Survey No.44/1 situated near Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society Limited, near Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without reference to the impugned shortfall letter dated 09.05.2026 and without reference to the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed by this Court in LA.No.3 of 2019 in W.P.No.8648 of 2019, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               List along with W.P.Nos.20655, 20789 of 2026 on 30.07.2026.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned interim order refers to an interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in W.P.No.8648 of 2019. But, without impleading the appellants herein, who are petitioners in W.P.No.8648 of 2019, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed W.P.No.22200 of 2026 in which the learned writ court has proceeded to pass the impugned interim order dated 13.07.2026 directing respondents No.2 to 4 in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as, “the Corporation”), to reconsider the building permission application of respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners in respect of the subject property without reference to the shortfall letter dated 09.05.2026 impugned in the said writ petition and also the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in WP No.8648 of 2019, within a period of four weeks. The appellants along with others have obtained injunction in their favour vide order dated 20.03.1998 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A. No.1118 of 1997 in O.S. No.38 of 1993. The appellants contend that as several people, who illegally purchased the subject land, were making applications to the Corporation for building permissions, they have filed representations to the Corporation to take appropriate action against the illegal construction and not to grant any permission. When no action was taken thereon, the appellants have approached this court earlier in W.P.No.8648 of 2019 and that they were not made party respondents in W.P.No.22200 of 2026. Therefore, they are seeking leave to file this appeal.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, leave is granted to the appellants to file the instant appeal and I.A.No.1 of 2026 is allowed.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the appellants were necessary parties, but were not impleaded in the instant writ petition where the writ petitioners assailed the action of the Corporation in issuing the shortfall intimation letter dated 09.05.2026 to the building application dated 03.04.2026 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and also the orders passed by the learned writ court in W.P.No.31563 of 2025 dated 17.10.2025, concerning Plot No.68 in Survey No.44/1 admeasuring 894.50 square yards situated near Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. It is not in dispute that the appellants were petitioners in W.P.No.8648 of 2019 in which an interim order was passed on 25.04.2019. The appellants had sought a direction upon the Corporation not to grant building permission in Survey No.44/1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the injunction order dated 20.03.1998 passed in I.A.No.1118 of 1997 in O.S.No.38 of 1993 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The interim prayer was allowed. At the instance of the present writ petitioners, in the instant writ petition, an interim direction has been issued to the same Corporation to reconsider the building permission of the present writ petitioners in respect of the property bearing Plot No.68 admeasuring 894.50 square yards in Survey No.44/1 situated near Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of four weeks without reference to the shortfall letter dated 09.05.2026 and without reference to the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned writ court in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in W.P.No.8648 of 2019 filed by the appellants. It is, therefore, apparent that there is a connection between W.P.No.8648 of 2019 and the instant writ petition.

7. The present writ petitioners are the vendors of M/s. Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society – respondent No.4 in W.P.No.8648 of 2019. The injunction order was passed at the behest of the appellants herein in O.S.No.38 of 1993, wherein M/s. Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society was also a party. The appellants claim to have got the injunction against sanction of building permission in respect of the land situated in Survey No.44/1 in respect of which for a particular plot, the present writ petitioners were seeking a relief for consideration of their building application.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that both the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.8648 of 2019 and W.P.No.22200 of 2026 may be heard together by the same Bench.

9. Learned counsel for the present writ petitioners do not dispute that the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in W.P.No.8648 of 2019 concerning the same survey number was passed in a writ petition preferred by the appellants in which the vendees of the present writ petitioners were also parties.

10. In the aforesaid state of facts, there is a definite interrelation between the pending writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.8648 of 2019 and W.P.No.22200 of 2026 and in the earlier one, an interim order has been passed, which the learned writ court directed to be ignored while reconsidering the building permission application of the present writ petitioners.

11. In the fitness of things, both W.P.No.8648 of 2019 and W.P.No.22200 of 2026 are therefore required to be taken up together so that no conflicting orders arise in respect of the subject matter covered in both the writ petitions.

12. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that W.P.No.8648 of 2019 be tagged and heard together along with W.P.No.22200 of 2026 by the appropriate writ court. Administrative orders, if required from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, be obtained for listing of both the matters before the appropriate Bench by the Registry.

13. Let W.P.No.8648 of 2019 and W.P.No.22200 of 2026 be listed on 24.08.2026. In the meantime, the impugned interim order dated 13.07.2026 shall remain in abeyance.

14. It would be open for the respective parties to address the learned writ court on the rival issues on their behalf, whereafter the learned writ court would take a call as to whether the impugned interim order is to be continued or vacated. Let it be made clear that we have not made any comments on the merits of the case of the parties and any of the observations made hereinabove shall not influence the decision to be taken by the learned writ court.

15. The instant appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.