Point of law: practice adopted by the Office/Registry of the Trial Court in repeatedly returning the plaint on one objection or the other touching upon the merits and demerits of the case without placing the matter before the Court below for hearing is deprecated, unwarranted and contrary to Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990

ORDER :

B. Krishna Mohan, J.

1. This civil revision petition is filed against the OSSR No. 1228 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram with return objections on the plaint, dated 22.7.2020.

2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in OSSR No. 1228 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant and her henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 over the plaint A, B, C Schedule properties including B, B1, D and D1 red marked portion shown in the plaint plan and grant of such other reliefs, in the interest of justice. The suit was initially filed on 3.7.2020 and it was numbered as OSSR No. 1228 of 2020, dated 6.7.2020. The plaint was returned with certain office objections, dated 6.7.2020, as follows:

1. As per Document No. 1 Partition Deed dated 2.11.2002 the surname of plaintiffs is "Srimanthina". The signatures of plaintiffs with their surnames is not tallied in the plaint as per partition deed, likewise vakalat etc.

2. The plaint plan is not tallied with the contents of plaint as well as plaint schedules.

3. How the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to file this suit, as defendants 1 and 2 are present owners of plaint "A" and "B" Schedule properties-should be explained.

Hence, returned, time 7 days.

Complying the said objections with an explanation, it was represented on 8.7.2020 with a further request if not satisfied with the compliance; the same may be put up before the Hon'ble Court for hearing on the objections and compliance.

But, the Office/Registry of the Trial Court again returned the plaint on 13.7.2020 elaborating the very same earlier objections into Serial Nos. 1 to 17 giving seven (7) days time for compliance by the plaintiffs. Then all the objections were complied again and represented on 15.7.2020 with the same request if not satisfied the same may be put up before the Hon'ble Court for it's hearing on the objections and compliance. Even this time also the Office/the Registry again returned the plaint on 17.7.2020 with the objections in Serial Nos. 1 to 5 requiring the plaintiffs to comply within seven (7) days. This time also the plaintiffs have represented the plaint complying the objections with necessary explanation on 21.7.2020. The earlier request of placing the matter before the Court for hearing if not satisfied with the compliance on objections is reiterated. Ignoring the compliance and request of placing the matter before the Court below for hearing, the Office/the Registry of the Trial Court again returned the plaint in OSSR No. 1228 of 2020, on 22.7.2020 raising similar objections in Serial Nos. 1 to 9 giving seven (7) days time for compliance. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed this revision before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is to be noted that since it is at the stage of numbering of the suit only, the Trial Court did not order any notices to the defendants and the Trial Court has not even heard on return of plaint by the Office/Registry with certain objections. Hence, this Court also proceeds with the hearing of this revision without ordering any notice to the respondents. In the similar lines this Court already disposed of CRP No. 3019 of 2018, dated 8.6.2018, CRP No. 6317 of 2016, dated 22.6.2017 and CRP No. 5856 of 2017, dated 19.1.2018 hearing the petitioners therein respectively at the admission stage without ordering notices to the respondents therein respectively. Accordingly, the Counsel for the petitioners is also heard on merits, as follows:

The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that while registering the suit, the Court can go through the averments made in the plaint only without going into the merits and demerits of the case, the repeated o