Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18170

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.798 of 2026

Between:
Kumari Kundrapu Priyanka and another
..... PETITIONERS
AND
Smt. Bandaru Varalakshmi and 3 others
....RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED : 02.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 30.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT UPLOADED : 30.04.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: []
For the Respondents: []

The registration of a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC is a ministerial act; court registries cannot conduct 'mini-trials' at the numbering stage by raising judicial objections, such as questioning title, and must place the matter before the court for judicial determination if objections persist.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 58 - Adjudication of claims to property attached in execution - Scope of ministerial power - Registration of claim petition - Court should not conduct 'mini-trials' at the registration stage by raising judicial objections regarding title or entitlement - Registry must not return pleadings repeatedly for varied objections without placing them before the Court for judicial orders. (Paras 21-26, 30)

(B) Judicial Discipline - Duty of lower courts to follow binding precedents - High Court directions in previous judgments regarding registration of plaints/petitions must be strictly adhered to by District Judiciary to ensure access to justice. (Paras 17-19, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a claim petition under Order XXI R.58 CPC in an execution proceeding, asserting an ancestral share in attached property. The Court registry returned the petition multiple times with successive, varied objections concerning the petitioners' title and documentation. The petitioners challenged these recurring returns, arguing that they were being denied access to court and that the registry's actions amounted to an extra-judicial 'mini-trial' at the numbering stage.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the return of petitions at the numbering stage based on judicial objections is unsustainable. The registration process is ministerial; if objections are serious or unresolved by the registry, the matter must be placed before the judge for a judicial decision rather than being rejected or returned serially.

Issues: Whether the registry of the lower court was justified in returning a claim petition multiple times for separate objections at the registration stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim petition under Order XXI R.58 CPC requires adjudication on merit by the court; it cannot be stifled at the threshold by the registry conducting a 'mini-trial' or demanding evidence of title before registration. Procedural law is a handmaid of justice, not an obstruction to access.

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; the lower court was directed to register the claim petition and proceed in accordance with law.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 798 of 2026

JUDGMENT:

1. The petitioners are the claim petitioners, who have filed an un-numbered claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’), at the stage of registration (G.R.No.360 of 2026) in E.P.No.57 of 2019 in O.S.No.302 of 2017, on the file of the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli.

2. This C.R.P under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed raising the grievance that the said claim petition filed by the claim petitioners under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. was returned at the numbering stage by the said Court for the third time, raising different objections to the registration on all the occasions the same was presented and represented.

3. The prayer has been made to set aside the orders of return of the claim petition at the stage of numbering and to direct the Court of the X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli to register the claim petition filed in G.R.No.360 of 2026 in the aforesaid case.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs/decree holders. They hold the decree in a suit for recovery of amount against the defendants/judgment debtors, passed in O.S.No.302 of 2017 by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

5. The decree holders filed E.P.No.57 of 2019 for execution of the decree. In the E.P, an order of attachment of the E.P schedule property was passed. In the said E.P, the petitioners filed the claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C inter alia to raise the attachment levied over the schedule properties, claiming that the said property was ancestral in nature, jointly owned by the claim petitioners and others but was illegally attached. The 3rd respondent had no right, title or interest. Whereas the 4th respondent (father of the claim petitioners) had no exclusive right. The attachment adversely affects the right and title of the claim petitioners. It was stated that the 4th respondent at the most would be entitled to 1/3rd share in the attached schedule properties.

6. The claim petition in G.R.No.360 of 2026 was returned on 20.01.2026, with the following office objections:

“Return dt:20/01/2006

1. How the claim petitioners are entitled to file the claim petition without having any right/title over the E.P schedule property.

2. The claim petitioners should file any documents to show their title and right with regard to E.P schedule property.

Hence returned.

Time 7 days”

7. The claim petition was represented on 23.01.2026, giving the explanation to the objections raised, objection wise. The said representation dated 23.01.2026 with endorsement reads as under:

“The claim petition is represented after proper explanations and compliance to the objections taken by the Honourable Court dated 20-01-2026.

Objection No.1: How the claim petitioners are entitled to file the claim petition without having any right/title over the EP schedule property?

Explanation: It is an undisputed fact that the claim petitioners are the natural sisters and daughters, respectively, of the judgment Debtors. Sri Kundrapu Venkata Swamy Naidu and Smt. Kundrapu Padmavathi.

The properties described in the Execution Petition Schedule are ancestral properties. This status is not in dispute, as evidenced by the ROR-1B report filed by the Decree Holders themselves, which traces the origin of these properties to inheritance within the family of the Judgment-Debtors.

The properties detailed in the Claim Petition Schedule and the Execution Petition Schedule are identical. These ancestral properties have not yet been partitioned amongst the rightful legal hers and sharers.

Consequently, the EP Schedule Properties remain undivided and jointly held. The Clam Petitioners, along with the 2nd Judgment Debtor (their father and the familial head), hold joint title, interest, and constructive possession over the said properties.

Therefore, the very document (ROR-1B) furnishe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document