The procedural law must facilitate justice; objections not outlined in the statute cannot impede plaint registration at the initial stage.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners.

I. FACTS:

2. The petitioners in order to institute the suit for partition of plaint schedule property and to put them in their respective shares, submitted a plaint in the office of the Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam, Numbered as G.R.No.10331/16-07- 2024, which has finally been returned on 22.07.2024 with certain objections, of which reference would be made shortly.

3. Challenging the order dated 22.07.2024, the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners.

4. The respondents 1 to 5 are arrayed as defendants in the plaint. Since the suit has not been registered yet and it is at the stage of G.R number and the plaint has been returned, there is no question of issuing notice of this petition to the respondents.

5. The plaintiff – petitioners presented the plaint under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C on 16.07.2024.

II. OFFICE OBJECTIONS:

6. The plaint was returned to the petitioners with the following office objections:-

“Returned on 16.07.2024:

1. Family pedigree (Genealogy) is to be filed.

2. E-mail Id’s of both parties are to be furnished in cause title of plaint

3. Full details of Valuation and Court fee particulars are to be mentioned in para-V of plaint

4. Encumbrance certificate for plaint schedule property from 14.08.1946 till date is to be filed.

5. M.V. certificate for plaint schedule S.No.3/1A1 is to be filed.”

7. The petitioners again represented the plaint on 22.07.2024 making the following endorsements:

“Represented on 22.07.2024:

1. Since, the suit is not between Maddula Family members and only between people claiming right from and through Maddula family members, it may not be necessary for the plaintiffs to file family pedigree. Further the plaintiff being outsiders to Maddula family and since the Maddula family as mentioned in the plaint is not a large family and since there is no confusion at all, it is respectfully submitted that there is no necessity of family pedigree.

2. Complied with.

3. Complied with.

4. It is respectfully submitted that EC for the schedule property from 1946 is impossible to be produced and it is also respectfully submitted that it is quite unnecessary.

5. It is submitted that the registration department is not giving M. V. Certificate basing on survey number but going by the area and D.No‘s of the property (or) the nearest Door Number.

Objections answered accordingly hence represented.‖

8. Again the plaint was returned on 22.07.2024 with the following objections granting 7 days time to remove the objections:

“1. Objection Nos.1,3,4 and 5 dated 16.07.2024 are to be complied.

2. Documents if any showing joint possession of the property are to be filed.

3. Particulars of the schedule property are not filled with the schedule of doc No.11, explain.

4. As per the recitals of doc No.2, all the parties thereto including Maddula Sambasiva Rao, through whom D1 to D4 said to have traced their title, have partitioned all the properties. Explain on maintainability of the suit on joint possession.

5. Explain maintainability of the suit without seeking appropriate reliefs, if any, as per law on the Regd., development agreement coupled with GPA No.4152/2023 dated 08.05.2023 etc., duly paying CF in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC 112 and J. Vasanthi & others vs. N. Raman