Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 23840

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J
Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao – Appellant
Versus
Ethalapaka Vanaja – Respondent
C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.V. Ravi Prasad
For the Respondents: Nil

The registration of a plaint is a ministerial act. A court's registry cannot demand extraneous documents or decide on the maintainability of a suit at the pre-registration stage. Such judicial functions must be performed by the court after the suit is formally instituted.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rules 1, 3, 10, 14 - Order XIII Rule 1 - A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 - Rules 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23 - Registration of plaint - Scope of scrutiny by registry - Ministerial vs. judicial acts - Procedure is a handmaid of justice - Courts should not insist on non-statutory documents at the pre-registration stage - Rejection of plaint for non-compliance with ministerial objections is not permissible. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 27, 36, 50)

(B) Procedural Law - Duty of Registry - Registration of a plaint is a ministerial act - Registry lacks power to conduct roving inquiries or decide on the maintainability of a suit at the pre-registration stage - Such inquiries fall within the exclusive domain of the court on the judicial side. (Paras 22.3, 36, 42, 44)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners presented a plaint for partition which was returned by the registry with multiple objections including the demand for a family pedigree, an encumbrance certificate spanning several decades, and explanations regarding the maintenance of a suit on joint possession and the validity of a development agreement. The petitioners contested these demands, arguing that such requirements are not contemplated by the procedural code or the relevant civil rules of practice.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the registry failed to distinguish between its ministerial duties and the judicial functions of the court. None of the provisions governing the registration of a plaint mandate the filing of an encumbrance certificate or a family pedigree as a condition precedent for numbering a suit. Objections regarding the maintainability of a suit, court fees, or the necessity of impleading parties are matters that must be adjudicated by the court on the judicial side after the suit is registered and the parties are heard.

Issues: Whether the registry of a court is empowered to demand additional documentary evidence and explanations regarding the maintainability of a suit at the pre-registration stage and whether the failure to comply with such demands warrants the return of the plaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The registration of a plaint is a purely administrative or ministerial act. Procedural rules are intended to facilitate the path to justice rather than serve as obstacles at the entry point. The registry cannot exercise judicial power to determine the validity of a claim or the sufficiency of evidence prior to the formal institution of the suit; such matters must be placed before a court.

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. registration of a plaint is a ministerial function, not a judicial one, and should not be impeded by premature or excessive objections. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. procedural rules in the code of civil procedure and civil rules of practice are handmaids of justice, not tools to obstruct litigation or demand proof of facts at the filing stage. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
3. a registry cannot require extra-statutory documents (like encumbrance certificates) as a mandatory condition for the registration of a plaint. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. matters regarding the maintainability of a suit, determination of court fees, and impleadment of parties are judicial functions to be decided by the court, not ministerial objections for the registry. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
5. if a plaint is resubmitted with explanations, it should be placed before the court for judicial orders rather than being repeatedly returned by the registry. (Para 50 , 51)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.01.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

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. Docu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 23840

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHRavi Nath Tilhari, JGorripati Veera Venkata Rao – AppellantVersusEthalapaka Vanaja – RespondentC.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024

The registration of a plaint is a ministerial act. A court's registry cannot demand extraneous documents or decide on the maintainability of a suit at the pre-registration stage. Such judicial functions must be performed by the court after the suit is formally instituted.

Cases Referred (10)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J
Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao – Appellant
Versus
Ethalapaka Vanaja – Respondent
C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024