ORDER :

Heard Sri P. Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The plaintiff in an un-numbered suit filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit vide CFR No.515 of 2026, dated 01.06.2026, on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-Additional Family Court, Guntur. The plaint was returned with certain objections on the same day, giving seven days for resubmission.

4. The plaint was re-submitted by complying with objections on 02.06.2026 as seen from the material papers filed along with the CRP at pages 57 and 58 and the docket endorsement at Sl.No.2 dated 02.06.2026. Again, the plaint was returned on 02.06.2026, with an endorsement “previous objections not complied with properly”.

5. Thereafter, learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo vide CFR No.534/02.06.2026. In the said memo, it was mentioned that the objections raised by the Court were complied with, and further requested an open court hearing. This court, at this juncture, is not going into the other aspects in the memo.

6. By docket order dated 02.06.2026, learned Judge, Vacation Court, Camp at Narasaraopet, returned the memo, after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and the order reads as follows:

(1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff material available on record.

(2) The plaintiff has submitted a plaint (un-numbered) on 01.06.2026 and the same was returned with certain objections. The same was re-submitted with out of order petition on 02.06.2026. As it appears the objections dated 01.06.2026 were not complied with, the plaint again returned on 02.06.2026. (emphasis is mine)

(3) Now after return of plaint the learned counsel for plaintiff filed this memo. The submission of learned counsel for plaintiff is that the plaintiff is having urgency, and that the plaint may be numbered.

(4) When once a plaint is returned the proper course is to re submit the same with compliance. If the party or the learned counsel feels that the objections taken by the office of the court are unreasonable or not sustainable, the party or the learned counsel can seek for hearing the matter on bench. However a party is not entitled for hearing on bench as a matter of right, and the court should feel that it is a fit case to be heard on bench.

(5) Here the plaint was already returned. Without re submission of that plaint the question of hearing on the compliance of objections does not arise. Hearing a return plaint without re submission is un-known to procedure of law.

(6) Hence, considering all these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is directed to re-submit the returned plaint, and to seek for hearing on bench.

(7) Hence, I am of the humble view that the memo in the present form is not maintainable, and accordingly returned.”

7. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel, while placing reliance upon the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao and Others Vs Ethalapaka Vanaja and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine AP 50, would submit that repeated return of the plaint without looking into the compliance is impermissible. He would further submit that the return on 02.06.2026 that the previous objections were not complied with, without specifying which objection was not complied with, is objectionable. The observation of the learned trial Court that the party is not entitled to a hearing on the bench as a matter of right, in a private law remedy, is unwarranted and impermissible.

8. The point for consideration is:

Whether the return of the plaint by endorsing that the previous objections were not complied with, without specifying which objection is permissible?

9. The above Civil Revision Petition was instituted by way of a lunch motion on 04.06.2026. Since the suit itself is not numbered, issuance of notice to the defendants in the suit, who are arrayed as respondents in the revision, is not necessary. This