Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Ethalapaka Vanaja and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P. No.1841 of 2024
Decided on 10.1.2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 – Return/rejection of plaint – Where plaint is sought to be rejected on any of grounds provided under Order VII Rule 11 even during pre-registration stage, matter must be posted before open court and plaintiff or his/her Counsel must be heard in the matter – 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 and Court/Registry needs to become adequately aware about it. (Paras 54 and 55)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIII Rule 1 – Production of original documents – All documentary evidence, in original where copies have been filed along with plaint or written statement shall be produced on or before framing of issues – Encumbrance certificate is not one of such documents which shall be entered in list and filed with plaint – Even if, it be taken that encumbrance certificate is one such document as contemplated by Order VII Rule 14, in a specific plaint case, and plaintiff does not comply with requirement of Order VII Rule 14, plaint can still not be returned to compel plaintiff to file encumbrance certificate at the stage of registration of plaint, as, if necessary, it can be filed later on with leave of court under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Stage of registration of plaint is ministerial and not exercise of judicial function. (Paras 26, 27, 35 and 36)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 – Return/rejection of plaint – Maintainability of a suit is always a question which is to be decided by Court – After registration and placing of plaint before Court for consideration, such question of maintainability may be considered and answered – Registry has no power to decide such objection – After raising objection on maintainability of suit, matter is to be placed before Court, where plaintiff has to satisfy Court about maintainability – Deciding maintainability of suit is a judicial function and not a ministerial function – Even if there be a valid objection to maintainability of a suit, plaint is not to be refused registration nor is to be returned by Registry but is to be placed before court, pointing out such objection. (Para 42)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 and Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 – Maintainability of suit – All rules of procedure are handmaid of justice – Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice and not an obstruction – To restrict litigant seeking for justice at entry point, stage of registration and numbering of plaint, by raising objections not provided or contemplated by provisions of Code of Civil Procedure or/and A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Order, 1980, or such objections which are required to be decided on judicial side and based on such objections not to register or number plaint and return the same again and again, results in keeping such person away from Court, which certainly results in delaying dispensation of justice – Even if objections have backing of rules and there is non-compliance, plaint should not be returned frequently, to comply with objections, in spite of re-submission with reply.(Para 50)
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
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 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. Ramani Kanthammal dated 10.08.2017 by impleading parties though as per law including Mumbai International Airport Pvt., Ltd., vs. Regency convention Center & Hotels & others dated 06.07.2010 and Rahul S. Shah for enabling the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the suit.
III. Submission of Learned Counsel for the Petitioners:
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners complied with the objections at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of th
(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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
