Court must number plaint if procedural requirements met; cannot demand full evidence or hear respondents pre-registration.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the return made in unnumbered plaint by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, wherein the petitioner herein has presented the suit before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.

2. The main suit was filed for the relief of declaration to declare the adoption of the plaintiff and to declare the 1^st and 2^nd defendants are not legal heirs of Sakunthala and also to declare order passed in O.S.No.21 of 2022 under Lok Adalat case No.356 of 2022 dated 26.06.2022 by the District Legal Service Authority, Ariyalur is not binding the plaintiff. The said plaint was returned as against the order of return endorsement made by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the Civil Revision Petition.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed suit for relief of declaration and other reliefs and the suit was presented before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur on 03.11.2022 and the same was returned. Again, the plaintiff had presented the plaint and it was returned on 22.11.2022 for some corrections and again it was represented on 24.11.2022. Again, for the third time, the plaint was returned on 28.11.2022 for some alternations and corrections. The plaintiff complied all the necessary corrections and represented in time and the same was returned on 01.12.2022 without numbering. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to direct the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur to number the unnumbered plaint.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner being plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of (i) declaration to declare the adoption of the plaintiff (ii) to declare the 1^st and 2^nd defendants are not legal heirs of Sakunthala and also (iii) to declare order passed in O.S.No.21 of 2022 under Lok Adalat case No.356 of 2022 dated 26.06.2022 by the District Legal Service Authority, Ariyalur not binding the plaintiff. The said plaint was returned for some compliance and it was represented again. The plaint was returned on 28.11.2022 for want of evidence to show the adoption and maintainability of suit before the Court and also questioned the valuation fixed by the plaintiff. For that, the plaintiff represented the plaint by stating that the oral and documentary evidence will be produced at the time of trial. Since the incapable valuation, the minimum value was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaint was represented thereafter again the suit was returned on 01.12.2022 that previous return was not complied with, and the legal heir documents to be filed. The suit itself filed for the relief of deciding the legal heir. While so, the filing of the legal heir document is not possible and already returns are complied with. Therefore the order passed by the trial Court refusing to number the plaint and returned the same is liable to be set aside and the suit is ordered to be numbered.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced judgment in the case of Aditya Bafna -vs- S.Muthulakshmi and others reported in CRP.No.2246 of 2021

6. On side of the respondent, M/s.S.Thanka Sivam appeared for Respondents 1 and 2, and this Court questioned the right of audience before numbering the plaint. However, he stated that the petitioner has filed false affidavit thereby it is liable to be prosecuted for fabricating false evidence. Thereby the case is thrown out before numbering the suit itself. Further he relied the judgments in the cases of (i) Ramjas Foundation and another -vs- Union of India and others reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38 and (ii) Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals -vs- Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Limited and another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 147 and also produced the copies of documents and typed set. Since the Civil Revision Petition is filed in respect of return of plaint before numbering the suit, the audience to respondent is not permissible and if at all, the petitioner aggrieves, he