RAVI NATH TILHARI
Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao – Appellant
Versus
Ethalapaka Vanaja – Respondent
JUDGMENT
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
Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) Through LRs
P. Surendran vs. State by Inspector of Police
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Lakshmi Chand
Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh
Jellellamudi Jagadeesh and Anr. vs. Jillellamudi Subbayamma and Ors.
Mohd. Osman Ali vs. Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and Anr.
J. Vasanthi and Ors. vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal (died) represented by Legal representatives and Ors.
(1) Return of plaint – For curing any of permissible defects, no court shall return plaint more than once – Returning plaint multiple times on multiple grounds is a sin in procedure.(2) Encumbrance c....
The procedural law must facilitate justice; objections not outlined in the statute cannot impede plaint registration at the initial stage.
Pleadings in civil suits cannot be registered as documents under the Registration Act, 1908, as they do not create or affect property rights.
The rejection of plaint is valid under mandatory provisions when the plaintiff fails to provide necessary documentation to support their claim for partition.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a cause of action, and the burden lies on the plaintiff to provide necessary documentation to substantiate claims, especially ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.