1

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

+C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024

% 10.01.2025

# Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao

and others

……Petitioners

And:

$ Ethalapaka Vanaja and

others

….Respondents.

!Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad

^Counsel for the respondents : Nil

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1.2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2514

2.2023 (3) ALT 16 (AP)

3.2010(5) ALT 411 (S.B)

4.(2010) 7 SCC 417

5.(2017) 11 SCC 852

6.(2010) 12 SCC 112

7.(2020) 10 SCC 706

8.(2008) 17 SCC 117

9.(2023) 11 SCC 79

10. 2019 (4) ALT 321 (TS)

11. 2015 (1) ALT 352

12. 2004(1) An.W.R.252 (A.P)

13. 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5302

14. (2021) 6 SCC 418

15. (2019) 9 SCC 154

16. AIR 1963 SC 677

17. (2012) 5 SCC 370

2

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.01.2025

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

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024

JUDGMENT:

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.

4

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.

5

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

6

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 LE ARNED 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 the

objection dated 16.07.2024. With respect to the objections at

Sl.Nos.1,3,4 and 5 of the objection dated 16.07.2024 petitioners

answered that the suit was not between Maddula family members

and only between people claiming right from and through

Maddula family members, it might not be necessary for the

plaintiffs to file the family pedigree. Further, the plaintiffs being

outsiders to Maddula family and since the Maddula family as

mentioned in the plaint was not a large family and since there

was no confusion at all, there was no necessity to file the family

pedigree. With respect to objection No.4, the Encumbrance

Certificate for the schedule property from 1946 till date to be filed,

7

the plaintiffs answered that it was impossible to produce such

Encumbrance Certificate from 1946 and that was also quite

unnecessary. With respect to objection of the Market Value

Certificate for plaint schedule property in Sy.No.3/1A1, they

answered that the Registration department had not been giving

such certificate basing on the survey number but was going by

the area and door numbers of the property or the nearest door

number.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

return of plaint on 22.07.2024, was with the further objections,

under Point No.2 documents if any showing joint possession of

the property were to be filed and under Point No.3, particulars of

the schedule property were not filed with the schedule of

document No.11, and Point No.4 as per the recitals of document

No.2, all the parties thereto including Maddula Sambasiva Rao,

thorough whom D.1 to D.4 said to have traced their title have

partitioned all the properties. Explain, on maintainability of the

suit on joint possession. The petitioners had been further asked

under Point No.5, to explain maintainability of the suit without

seeking appropriate relief, if any, as per law on the registered

development agreement coupled with G.P.A No.4152/2023

8

dated 08.05.2023 etc., and asking them to duly pay court fee in

terms of the law laid down by the 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, as per law including Mumbai International

Airport Pvt., Ltd., vs. Regency convention Centre & Hotels &

others dated 06.07.2010 and Rahul S. Shah for enabling the

court to effectively and completely adjudicate the suit.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the

time of registration of the suit/at the stage of the G.R of the plaint,

all those objections as raised by the office, including asking to

submit encumbrance certificate, document to show joint

possession, to explain and file the particulars of the document

Nos.11 and 2; maintainability of the suit on joint possession; as

also maintainability under objection No.5, deserved not to be

raised. He submitted that such objections as raised by the office,

which the petitioners had not complied, are not the objections

contemplated by the procedural law, namely Code of Civil

Procedure (CPC) or/and the A.P. Civil Rules of Procedure and

Circular Orders, 1980 (in short the Rules, 1980), for registration of

the plaint. He submitted that the maintainability of the suit, if the

9

suit is for all the reliefs, or proper reliefs or not, or appropriate

reliefs, as well as the proof of the pedigree, all these matters, if

required at all could be only after registration and institution of the

suit, by the court, if so required on the judicial side, after giving

opportunity to the parties. He submitted that such office objection

at this stage of registration of plaint was un-called for and legally

impermissible. The registration of the plaint could not be refused

and the plaint could not be returned.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in the

following cases:-

(1) Selvaraj vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant

India Limited

1

,

(2) Jellellamudi Jagadeesh and another vs.

Jillellamudi Subbayamma and others

2

,

(3) Mohd. Osman Ali vs. Second Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad and another

3

,

(4) Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs.

Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited

and others

4

,

(5) J. Vasanthi and others vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal

(died) represented by Legal representatives and others

5

and

1

2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2514

2

2023 (3) ALT 16 (AP)

3

2010(5) ALT 411 (S.B)

4

(2010) 7 SCC 417

5

(2017) 11 SCC 852

10

(6) Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir

Singh and others

6

.

13. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused

the material on record.

IV. PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS:

1) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

14. I shall first refer to the relevant provisions of C.P.C as

under:

14.1. Order 7 rule 1 C.P.C provides for the particulars,

which a plaint shall contain and reads as under:

―Rule 1: Particulars to be contained in plaint.—

The plaint shall contain the following particulars:

(a) the name of the Court in which the suit is brought;

(b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff;

(c) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant,

so far as they can be ascertained;

(d) where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of

unsound mind, a statement to that effect;

(e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose;

(f) the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction;

6

(2010) 12 SCC 112

11

(g) the relief which the plaintiff claims;

(h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a

portion of his claim, the amount so allowed or relinquished; and

(i) a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the

purposes of jurisdiction and of court fees, so far as the case

admits.

14.2. Order 7 Rule 3 of C.P.C further provides for the

plaint to contain where the subject matter of the suit is immovable

property. It reads as under:

―3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable

property.—

Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the

plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to

identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by

boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the

plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.

14.3. Order 7 rule 10 C.P.C provides for return of plaint. It

reads as under:

―10. Return of plaint: (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the

plaint shall at any state of the suit be returned to be presented to

the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.

Explanation-

12

For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court

of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree

passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.

(2) procedure on returning plaint- On returning a plaint, the Judge

shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the

name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the

reasons for returning it.‖

14.4. Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C provides as under:

14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or

relies.—

(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon

document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he

shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court

when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time

deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the

plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or

power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose

possession or power it is.

(3) Where any such document or a copy thereof is not filed

with the plaint under this rule, it shall not be allowed to be

received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

13

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the

cross-examination of the plaintiff‘s witnesses, or, handed over to

a witness merely to refresh his memory.

14.5. Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C provides for production,

Impounding and Return of Documents. It reads as under:

―Rule 1: Original documents to be produced at or before the

settlement of issues—

(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the

settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original

where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or

written statement.

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced:

Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof

prepared in such form as the High Court directs.

(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents—

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the

other party; or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory‖.

2) A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, 1980

15 A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Order, 1980, inter

alia, provides for, the form of proceedings, presentation and

14

registration of plaint. The relevant Rules 8 to 11, 14, 16, 20, 21,

22 and 23, and Form 7 are reproduced hereunder:

15.1. Rule 8 Form of plaints, etc.:

All plaints, written statements, applications, affidavits,

memorandum of appeal and other proceedings presented to the

Court, shall be written, typewritten or printed, fairly and legibly on

stamped paper or on substantial foolscap folio paper, with an

outer margin of about two inches and an inner margin about one

inch wide, and separate sheets shall be stitched together book

wise. The writing or printing may be on both sides of the paper,

and numbers shall be expressed in figures.

15.2. Rule 9 Cause-title of plaint etc.:

(1)A plaint, or original petition, shall be headed with a cause-title,

as in Form No. 1. The cause title shall set out the name of the

Court, and the names of the parties, separately numbered, and

described as plaintiffs and defendants or petitioners and

respondents as the case may be.

(2)Cause title of memorandum of appeal:—A memorandum of

appeal shall be headed with a cause-title setting out the names of

the courts to and from which the appeal is brought, the names of

the parties, separately numbered and described as appellants

and respondents, and also the full cause title of the suit or matter

in the lower court, as in Form No. 2.‖

(3)Cause-title of subsequent proceedings:—All proceedings,

subsequent to a plaint or original petition shall be headed with

cause-title as in Form No.1 and all proceedings subsequent to a

15

memorandum of appeal shall be headed with a cause title as in

the first part of Form No.2.

15.3 “10.Names etc. of parties:

The full name, residence, and description of each party,

and if such is the case, the fact that any party uses or is used in a

representative character, shall be set out at the beginning of the

plaint, original petition, or memorandum of appeal, as in Form No.

5, and need not be repeated in the subsequent proceedings in

the same suit, appeal or matter.‖

15.4 11. Address for Service:

(1) Every pleading shall contain the address for service, which

shall be within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court in

which the suit is filed or of the District Court in which the party

ordinarily resides. The address for service shall contain

particulars such as the Municipal or Panchayat number of the

house, name of the street and locality.

15.5. “14. Proceedings in respect of immovable property:

Every plaint, original petition and memorandum of appeal,

in which relief is sought with respect to immovable property, shall

state, as part of the description thereof the registration district,

sub-district, the name of the village, Municipality or Corporation in

which the property is situate, the survey number or the house

number, if any, the market value of the property and the value for

purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction as computed according to

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation

Act, 1956 and in cases where the court-fee payable on the rental

16

value, the annual rental value of the property for which it is let,

and there shall be annexed thereto a statement duly filled in and

signed by the party of the particulars mentioned in Form No. 8 In

the absence of the said particulars, the proceedings may be

received but shall not be admitted or filed until the provisions of

this rule have been complied with.

15.6 “16 List of documents filed along with the plaint:

―Every plaint shall at the foot thereof, contain a list, to be

signed by the plaintiff or his advocate, of the documents

filed therewith, in Form No. 7 or a statement, signed as

aforesaid, that no document is filed therewith.‖

15.7. 20. “Presentation of proceedings:

(1) All plaints, written statements, applications, and other

proceedings and documents may be presented to or filed in court

by delivering the same by the party in person or by his recognized

agent or by his Advocate or by a duly registered clerk of the

Advocate to the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court or such other

officers as may be designated for the purpose by the Judge

before 4.00 P.M. on any working day.

Provided that in case where the limitation expires on the

same day they may be received by a Judge even after 4.00 P.M.

(2) The Officer to whom such documents were presented shall at

once endorse on the documents the date of presentation, the value of

the stamp fixed and if the proceedings, are thereby instituted, shall

insert the serial number.

3. In case of paper bearing court fee stamps, he shall, if required

issue a receipt in Form No. 17 in Appendix III – L to these rules.

17

4. Every plaint or proceeding presented to or filed in court shall be

accompanied by as many copies on plain paper of the plaint or

proceedings and the document referred to in Rule 16, as there

are defendants or respondents unless the court otherwise

dispenses with such copies of the documents by reason of their

length or for any other sufficient reason.‖

15.8. “22. “Procedure on presentation:

1) On presentation of every plaint the same shall be entered

in Register No. 17 in Appendix II, Part-II, Volume II and examined

by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court.

2). If he finds that the plaint complies with all the requirements,

he shall make an endorsement on the plaint ‗Examined and may

be registered‘ with the date and his signature and placed before

the Judge, The Chief Ministerial Officer shall also endorse on the

plaint or proceedings if any caveat has been filed. If he thinks that

the plaint shall be returned for presentation to the proper court or

be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 or for any other person, he

shall place the matter before the Judge for orders.

3). Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) any non-

compliance with these rules or any clerical mistake may be

required by the Chief Ministerial officer to be rectified. Any

rectification so effected, shall be initialed and, dated by the party

or his advocate making the same and the Chief Ministerial Officer

shall note the number of corrections in the margin and shall initial

and date the same. In the event of such rectification not being

made within the time specified, the Chief Ministerial Officer shall

place the matter before the Judge for Orders.‖

18

15.9. “23. Registration of plaint:

―Where, upon examination, the plaint is found to be in

order, it shall be entered in the register of suits, and the

Judge shall pass orders as to the issue of summons or

otherwise.‖

15.10. Form No.7 as referred to in Rule 16 of the Rules,

1980 is as under:

“Form No.7:

Rules 16, 17 and 102 - List of documents under Order VII,

R. 14 or Order XIII, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(Cause title)

List of documents filed under Order VII, Rule 14 or Order

XIII, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure

S.No.

Date if any of documents in Parties to the Description

of vernacular and in English Parties to the document

Description of document

(Signed)

E.F.

Plaintiff (or Defendant) or Pleader for Plaintiff (or

Defendant)‖

15.11. Form No.7, refers to list of documents under Order

VII rule 14 or Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C which has been reproduced

(supra).

19

V. PROCEDURE HANDMA ID OF JUSTICE:

16. It is settled in law that Procedure is a handmaid of justice.

Before proceeding further, this court consider it appropriate to

refer the precedents on the point that the procedure is a

handmaid of justice.

17. In Sambhaji v. Gangabai

7

the Hon‘ble Apex Court held

that all the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The

language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be

liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of

prescribing procedure is to advance justice. In an adversarial

system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of

participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless

compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the

provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to

be construed in a manner which would leave the Court helpless

to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.

18. Paragraph Nos.(10) to (14) of Sambhaji (supra) read as

under:

“10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The

language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal

or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing

7

(2008) 17 SCC 117

20

procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system,

no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating

in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express

and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any

other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner

which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations

in the ends of justice.

11. The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge's

conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.

12. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to

overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist

rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal

justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in the

Judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise

would be wholly inequitable. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence,

processual, as much as substantive. …

13. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He

has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time

being by or for the court in which the case is pending, and if, by an

Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other

right than to proceed according to the altered mode. … A procedural

law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural

law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation

which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed.

…

14. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an

obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the

handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the

administration of justice.”

21

19. In Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar

8

the Hon‘ble Apex Court

reiterated that the procedure is a handmade of justice.

Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in

the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. If the

procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the

adversary party, Courts must lean towards doing substantial

justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation.

20. In Abraham Patani v. State of Maharashtra

9

the Hon‘ble

Apex Court observed and held that when dealing with matters of

procedure the old adage of procedural laws being the handmaid

of justice must be kept in mind. It was observed that procedural

rules must not be allowed to defeat the basic purpose of a statute

or hamper the pursuit of justice.

21. Paragraphs-65 to 69 of Abraham Patani (supra) read as

under:

“65. Adverting to the first submission, we acknowledge the

unambiguous language of Section 91 which contemplates an

application being submitted by the Commissioner, Respondent 3.

However, when dealing with such matters of procedure the old adage

of procedural laws being the handmaid of justice must be kept in

mind. As has been exhaustively and extensively reiterated by this

Court in the past, procedural rules must not be allowed to defeat the

8

(2020) 10 SCC 706

9

(2023) 11 SCC 79

22

basic purpose of a statute or hamper the pursuit of justice unless

violation of the procedure would itself amount to grave injustice.

66. In Sangram Sin gh v. Election Tribunal [Sangram

Singh v. Election Tribunal, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 21 : (1955) 2 SCR

1 : AIR 1955 SC 425] this Court in the context of procedural rules

held : (AIR p. 429, para 16)

“16. … It is “procedure”, something designed to facilitate justice

and further its ends : not a penal enactment for punishment and

penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a

construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity

of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided

always that justice is “done” to both sides) lest the very means

designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it.”

(emphasis supplied)

67. Similarly, in Ghanshyam Dass v. Union of India [Ghanshyam

Dass v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 46] the ethos behind “adjective

law” was elaborated upon while dealing with issuance of notice under

Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code : (SCC p. 54, para 12)

“12. In the ultimate analysis, the question as to whether a notice

under Section 80 of the Code is valid or not is a question of judicial

construction. The Privy Council and this Court have applied the rule

of strict compliance in dealing with the question of identity of the

person who issues the notice with the person who brings the suit. This

Court has however adopted the rule of substantial compliance in

dealing with the requirement that there must be identity between the

cause of action and the reliefs claimed in the notice as well as in the

plaint. As already stated, the Court has held that notice under this

section should be held to be sufficient if it substantially fulfils its

object of informing the parties concerned of the nature of the suit to

be filed. On this principle, it has been held that though the terms of

23

the section have to be strictly complied with, that does not mean that

the notice should be scrutinised in a pedantic manner divorced from

common sense. The point to be considered is whether the notice gives

sufficient information as to the nature of the claim such as would the

recipient to avert the litigation.”

(emphasis supplied)

68. In the same vein, Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar [Sugandhi v. P.

Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 116] promoted

an approach that sought to achieve substantial justice when confronted

with breaches of procedural law, especially when the other party did

not suffer any significant prejudice. This Court opined : (SCC pp.

708-709, para 12)

“9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice.

Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the

way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural

violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party,

courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying

upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the

fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the

foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps

to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.”

(emphasis supplied)

69. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Babu

Ram Upadhya [State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, 1960 SCC

OnLine SC 5 : (1961) 2 SCR 679 : AIR 1961 SC 751] , while laying

down the test for determining if the legislature intended for a

provision to be directory or mandatory in nature, held as follows :

(AIR p. 765, para 29)

24

“29. … For ascertaining the real intention of the legislature, the

Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute,

and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one

way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity

of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the

circumstance, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of

the non-compliance with the provisions, the fact that the non-

compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the

serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all,

whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.”

(emphasis supplied)”

VI. Judgment in “Selvaraj”:

22. In Selvaraj (supra), the batch of the cases was filed raising

the familiar grievance and a common complaint.

22.1. The Madras High Court in Selvaraj (supra) observed as

under:

―When a plaint is presented before the Registry on the

Original Side of the District Judiciary, the Registry while

scrutinizing it for evaluating its merit for registration, raises

baffling if not mindless objections, most of which may be

relevant only for final adjudication and not for registering

the plaint. And these objections eventually bear the

signature of the judicial officer concerned and hence they

become the Court‘s objections.

➢ Secondly, that plaints are repeatedly returned for curing

defects, with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/CRP(MD)

Nos.915, 943, 967, 991 & 330 of 2020 the Registry/Court

raising its objections in installments.

25

➢ That a plaint is not taken up for scrutiny for weeks or

months, and is neither taken on file, nor returned for weeks

to months on end. (Even in this batch there was a CRP(PD)

943/2020 which made a complaint falling in this variety)‖

22.2. The Madras High Court in Selvaraj (supra) observed that the

immediate consequence of those practices carried with it the

grim potentiality of defeating the very purpose of filing the suit,

and putting serious obstacles in the path of access to justice.

While the cause of action to bring an action at law belongs to the

plaintiff, the rights and the remedies attached to its violation

belong to the substantive law. The pursuit of justice however,

goes through a procedural process, and this is statutorily

governed Vide a century old Civil Procedure Code. Stricto senso,

the procedural aspect of registering the plaint must be, and at all

times, ought to be uniform. If all those who are enjoined with the

responsibility of registering the plaint understand the procedure

involved in the same way, then there is little reason for its

differential-application. The Madras High Court provided a

checklist for the Registry of the District Judiciary on what it may

do, or refrain from doing while scrutinizing the plaint. Observing

that to declare this aspect of law was not just part of the judicial

26

power of the Court but was part of its constitutional duty

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

22.3. In Selvaraj (supra), the Madras High Court considered the

procedural law for registration of plaint, under different heads

‗Registration of Plaint‘; ‗Return of plaint‘; ‗ understanding the

procedure‘. Order IV, VI, VII, Explanations: (a) cause of action (b)

Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction, (c) Limitation, (d) Valuation

etc. It observed that in the context of registration of the plaint, the

concern was how far the Court should filter the plaint for the

extent of its conformity with Order IV Rule 1. It differentiated a

‗judicial act‘ from an ‗administrative act‘ that the courts perform.

The registering of plaint was held to be a ministerial act observing

that a rule of thumb that distinguishes the adjudicatory/judicial act

of the court from its administrative/ministerial act was that the

former always required an application of judicial mind where the

Court was required to understand the contents of the plaint on a

plane of law, whereas the administrative/ministerial act of

scrutinizing the plaint did not require any elaborate distillation of

fact-finding. It observed that there was a clear distinction in law

between ―presentation of a plaint‖ and ―institution of a suit‖. The

27

procedure involved in vetting a plaint for numbering in the pre-

registration stage must be considered only as a preliminary stage,

and for curing defects at that stage a plaint could be re-turned as

part of the activities of the preliminary stage. It raised the issue,

but, how far can the Court/Registry stretch the process for vetting

the plaint for defects, during the preliminary stage. It then

observed that when the Code has set out the parameters, no

Court shall overstep the procedure prescription. Law of

procedure is a handmaid of justice, and a rule book of fairness

with inherent flexibility and elasticity. Its object was to aid the

furtherance of justice and not to impede it.

22.4. In Selvaraj (supra), the Madras High Court summed

up, the conclusions and to facilitate the process of scrutiny of

plaint, at the presenting stage also tabulated the manner of doing

so, in paras 50 to 56 which are reproduced hereunder:

“50. To sum up, the Court may reject the plaint before numbering

and entering it in the Register of Suits, if from a reading of the plaint, it

is seen that the suit is barred by any law, or if it suffers from any

procedural infirmity, adumbrated supra. The Court, at that stage,

cannot and is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits

of the matter by testing the correctness of the plaint-averments even

prior to its institution.

51. In S. Parameswari v. Denis Lourdusamy, [(2011) 5 CTC 742],

this Court had held that after one return, the Court should post the

matter in open Court, and invited arguments of the counsel on the

question of maintainability and pass a judicial order. If the objection is

28

upheld, the aggrieved party could work out his/her rights.

In Muthuganesah v. Thillaimani, [(2016) 2 LW 340], this Court had

pointed out:

―3. The court, while admitting the plaint, can scrutinise the other

aspects, namely the cause of action, valuation, payment of court

fee, jurisdiction and limitation. The court can also verify whether the

plaint has been filed in the proper form and whether the necessary

requirements of plaint have been complied with. The question as to

whether any other person should have been made a party is

outside the purview of the scrutiny of the trial court at the time of

admitting the plaint. The above said aspects are with reference to

the merits of the return made by the trial court.

4. Once certain defects are pointed out by the court and the

plaint is returned and the plaintiff or plaintiffs, re-present the same

stating that the plaint has been properly prepared and filed and

asking the court to hear regarding the necessity to comply with the

returns made by the court, the court can return the plaint provided

its view that the compliance with the returns are mandatory and it is

conceded by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff makes it clear that he is not

prepared to comply with the returns and the plaint as filed by him

should be taken on file, the trial court should reject the plaint rather

than returning the plaint stating the very same reason.”

52. This Court only adds a rider to it : In all cases where the Court

chooses to reject the plaint for not curing the defects mentioned (which

may include the issue on exclusion of jurisdiction) it is necessary for

the Court to follow the dictum in S. Parameswari v. Denis Lourdusamy,

[(2011) 5 CTC 742] and post the matter before Court, with or without

the request of the plaintiff or the counsel concerned, and hear them.

The duty to hear before a decision is made constitutes the soul of

procedural fairness inbuilt in the Civil Procedure Code, and cannot be

compromised.

53. Now, to facilitate the process of scrutiny of plaint at the

preliminary, preregistration stage in the manner herein above stated,

this Court tabulate the same below:

Heads Permissible during

scrutiny of plaint

Not permissible

Cause title and

form of pleading

(Order VI Rule 3)

Yes. Can be verified if

there is a substantial

compliance of Appendix

A.

Parties to suit

Order VII Rule 1

Yes. Required to the

extent required, and if

29

(a) to (b) and

Rule 4

the suit is laid in a

representative capacity.

Maintainability

(cause of action)

Sec.9 & Order VII

Rule 1(e)

Yes. Only to the extent

of ascertaining if the

plaintiff has a legally

recongised or

enforceable right on a

plain reading of the

plaint, and no more.

ØSufficiency or adequacy

of pleading cannot be gone

into. Hence grounds of

fraud as in Order VI Rule 4

CPC cannot be insisted.

ØProof of any of the

allegations in the plaint

should not be sought.

ØMerits of the matter or

correctness of the

pleadings cannot be gone

into.

Maintainability

(Jurisdiction)

Sec.9 CPC

ØIf the inherent

jurisdiction of the Court

is barred in granting the

relief sought by any

statute.

ØCaution must be

exercised before

returning a plaint. The

entire plaint, the cause

of action and the relief

sought must be

understood as are stated

or disclosed in the plaint

alone need to be

considered.

ØThe statutory provision

barring the institution of

the civil suit or excluding

the civil court's inherent

jurisdiction to take

cognizance of the civil

dispute must be strictly

under stood.

Maintainability

(Limitation)

Yes. Where a suit is ex

facie barred by limitation.

Only the allegation in the

plaint should be the

basis. However, where

Newer or clarificatory

material or proof of any fact

pertaining to limitation

should not be insisted.

30

the plaintiff pleads

exemption from the law

of limitation under Order

VII Rule 6, this should be

left to be tested post

registration of the suit at

the appropriate stage.

Maintainability

Territorial and

Pecuniary

jurisdiction Order

Sec.15 to 21 r/w

Order VII Rule

1(f)

Yes.

Money suits

Order VII Rule 2

If precise amount is

stated

However, sufficiency of the

description cannot be gone

into.

Description of

Property Order

VII Rule 3

Yes Again, if there is any

variance of extent or

boundary description with

any title deed, even that

may be formally notified for

a possible typographical or

clerical mistake, but if any

explanation is offered

justifying the extent stated,

the plaint has to be

registered. This is because,

looking for proof and

correctness of pleadings is

not contemplated at the

stage when the suit is

registered.

Relief Order VII

Rule 7 and 8

Yes, but limited to

ascertaining if a relief at

all is sought

Appropriateness or

suitability of the relief

sought cannot be gone

into. This is not Court's job.

Seeking the relief is the

prerogative of the plaintiff.

The fact that the Court may

31

not grant it ultimately is a

matter for adjudication, and

is part of its judicial act and

not part of its ministerial act

of numbering the plaint.

[See AIR 1942 Mad 446]

Valuation and

court fee

Yes. But the basis for

the the valuation must

be as stated by the

plaintiff.

If any objection as to

valuation must be done,

then the defendant can

always raise it during the

first hearing under

Sec.12(2) of the Tamil

Nadu Court Fee & Suit

Valuation Act, 1955

Proof of value of subject

matter of the suit such as

expert's valuation report

cannot be insisted.

Documents If enclosed can be

verified with the list

provided in the plaint the

possibility of laying a suit

24 × 7. No law compels

any person to possess

all the documents all the

time either. A cause of

action for the suit

invariably arises at a

time convenient to the

defendant, but it is the

plaintiff who has to

Production of the

documents cannot be

insisted.

It needs to be realised that,

given the level of poverty

and illiteracy in this country

it cannot be expected that

every one will possess all

the documents all the time,

anticipating approach the

Court to protect his/her

right. All that the plaintiff

therefore needs is only a

cause of action and not

proof of it when he enters

the court-system.

Documents This apart After all under

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC

documents, including title

documents can be

produced subsequently.

Production of documents

may be relevant for

considering the granting of

32

interim relief, but is not

mandatory for numbering

the suit.

Signing the plaint

Order VI Rule 14

Yes

Verification of

plaint Order VI

Rule 15

Yes

1. Copy of plaint and

affidavit.

2. Vakalath.

3. Any application for

leave to sue

4. Process along with

Accompanying

papers

copies of plaint.(Plaint

cannot be returned for

not providing it since

under Order VII Rule 9,

they have to be provided

only after the suit is

numbered and the Court

orders summons to the

defendant)

5. Any other applications

with affidavit

Others Any formal typographical

or clerical error apparent

on the face.

Any doubt as to

pecuniary or territorial

jurisdiction. This is

consistent with Order VII

Rule 1(a) CPC

Related Aspects:

54. Where the plaint is sought to be rejected on any of the grounds

provided under Order VII Rule 11 even during the pre-registration

stage, the matter must be posted before the open court, and the

plaintiff or his/her counsel must be heard in the matter.

33

55. For curing any of the permissible defects, no court shall return

the plaint more than once. This has been deprecated by this Court

even in S. Parameswari v. Denis Lourdusamy, [(2011) 5 CTC 742]

referred to above. In other words, returning the plaint multiple times on

multiple grounds is a sin in procedure and the Court/Registry needs to

become adequately aware about it. In spite of the fact that the decision

in S. Parameswari's case was pronouced a decade ago, even in this

batch of cases this Court has witnessed that some of our Courts and

their registry continue to flout it.

56. This apart, in all cases where the plaint is presented, a decision

as to numbering in the manner indicated in the tabulation provided in

paragraph 31 shall be taken not later than three working days

(excluding the date of presentation and any intervening holidays).‖

VI. ANALYSIS:

1) Rules:

23. Now coming to rules, a perusal of the aforesaid provisions

shows that Rule 20 of the Rules, 1980, which is for the

presentation of proceedings, under sub rule (1) Provides that all

plaints, written statements and other proceedings and documents

may be presented or filed in the court in the manner prescribed.

Rule 22, which is with respect to the procedure on presentation,

of plaint provides that on presentation of every plaint, the same

shall be entered in Register No.17, in Appendix-II, Part-II

Volume II, and be examined by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the

Court. If he finds that the plaint complies with all the

requirements, he shall make an endorsement on the plaint

―Examined and may be Registered‖, with the date and his

34

signature and shall place before the Judge. The Chief Ministerial

Officer shall also endorse on the plaint or proceeding, if any

caveat has been filed. If he thinks that the plaint shall be returned

for presentation to the proper court or be rejected under Order VII

Rule 11 or for any other reason, he shall place the matter before

the judge for orders.

24. Rule 16 of the Rules, 1980, provides for list of documents

filed along with the plaint. As per this rule every plaint shall at the

foot thereof, contain a list, to be signed by the plaintiff or his

advocate, of the documents filed therewith, in Form No.7, or a

statement, signed as aforesaid, that no document is filed

therewith. Form 7 does not provide for any specific description

of document only description of the document, inter alia, is to be

mentioned which the plaintiff is filing with the plaint in Form No.7.

It refers to Order VII Rule 14 and Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C.

25. Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C provides for the production of

documents where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon

documents in his possession or power in support of his claim.

Such documents, upon which he places reliance or sues, are to

be entered in a list and to be produced in court when the plaint is

presented. Under Order VII rule 14(3) even at a later stage the

35

court may permit the plaintiff to file such documents which he

ought to have produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaint

was presented or to be entered in the list, i.e with the leave of the

court.

26. Order XIII Rule 1 CPC relates to the production of original

documents on or before the settlement of issues. All the

documentary evidence, in original where the copies have been

filed along with the plaint or written statement shall be produced

on or before the framing of issues. As per Sub Rule (2) the court

shall receive the documents so produced.

2) ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE:

27. The aforesaid provisions do not specifically provide that the

encumbrance certificate, is one of such documents which shall be

entered in the list and filed with the plaint. So, it cannot be that

for non-production or not entering in the list the encumbrance

certificate, with the plaint would result in return of the plaint at the

stage of registration. None of the provisions show it mandatory to

file the encumbrance certificate along with the plaint. Further,

whether the encumbrance certificate would be document upon

which the plaintiff, sues or relies upon, is a question, to be seen

on the pleadings of the plaint. Plaintiff may not be suing or

36

placing reliance for his claim on encumbrance certificate. Even

the encumbrance certificate may not be in possession or power of

the plaintiff to attract the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C.

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 the plaintiff does not comply with the requirement

of Order VII Rule 14, the plaint can still not be returned to compel

the plaintiff to file encumbrance certificate at the stage of

registration of the plaint, as, if necessary, it can be filed later on

with the leave of the court under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC.

28. So, this court is of the view that, at the stage of registration

of plaint asking for filing the encumbrance certificate and raising

such, as an objection and in case of non compliance, returning

the plaint, is legally not permissible nor justified by the rule

position.

29. In Jillellamudi Jagadeesh (supra), the plaint was returned

with various objections, at the time of its registration, and on

resubmission was retuned again on different objections. This

court considered the point: “whether roaming enquiry is

necessary at the time of number the suit.” And held that, at

37

the stage of numbering the plaint, the courts normally shall not go

into the merits of the matter. If on perusal of the plaint, the plaint

disclosed cause of action, the court shall number the suit. If the

plaintiff failed to prove his claim/case during the trial, eventually

he would be non-suited. But, if the plaint disclosed cause of

action, whether the relief, the plaintiff was entitled or not, would

depend upon the evidence to be let in. At the stage of numbering

of the suit, court, normally, shall not go into merits of the suit and

decide as to whether the plaintiff would get the relief or not.

30. Paras 14 to 17 of Jillellamudi Jagadeesh (supra), are as

under:

―14. At the stage of numbering the plaint, the

Courts normally shall not go into merits of the matter. If on

perusal of the plaint and if plaint discloses cause of action, the

Court shall number the suit. if the plaintiff fails to prove

his claim/case during the trial, eventually he will be non-

suited. But if the plaint discloses cause of action whether the

relief, the plaintiff entitled or not, will depend upon the evidence

to be let in. At the stage of numbering of the suit,

court, normally, shall not go into merits of the suit and decides

as to whether the plaintiff gets the relief or not.

38

15. In Syed Hadi Ali Moosavi Vs. Syeda Taquia Moosavi

and Ors.

10

, the learned single Judge of the Telangana High

Court held as follows:

―16. … … it was not proper for the Court below to express any

opinion thereon at the stage of numbering of the plaint, particularly,

when as pointed above, it was unnecessary for the petitioner to

seek its cancellation.

17. As regards the reason (d) assigned by the Court below

regarding defective description of the suit schedule property that

the total extent of the property is not specifically mentioned in the

schedule, it is not a ground to reject the plaint and at best the Court

below can ask the party to submit the extent and incorporate the

same in the plaint.

18. Regarding the reason (e) given by the trial Court

that petitioner did not mention which part of the property is in

his possession, that may be a matter to be gone into while

considering grounds of relief in the suit and it is not a ground

to reject the plaint.

19. As regards reason (f) that the plaint did not disclose

proper and valid cause of action is concerned, para 12 of the

plaint deals with the same. It cannot, in my opinion, be said

to be inadequate warranting rejection of the plaint at the

stage of numbering of the suit. Eventually, Court directed the

Wakf Tribunal to number the suit.

16. In Pranit Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Goundra

Yadaiah

11

, while placing reliance upon Full Bench decision

of this Court, in Chillakuru Chenchuram Reddy Vs.

Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy (ILR 1969 AP 1042), that

at the initial stage, the plaint averments and the documents

in support of the plaint are only decisive and after

appearance, pleadings of the defendants that also to be

considered in deciding the sufficiency of Court Fee and this

10

2019 (4) ALT 321 (TS)

11

2015 (1) ALT 352

39

aspect of sufficiency of Court Fee is a mixed question of fact

and law and not possible to reject the plaint straight away as

sought for by the defendants and all the disputed facts

raised require elaborate and roving enquiry that can be

possible only by trial.

17. In R.V. Bhuvaneswari and Ors. Vs.

Ponnuboina Chencu Ramaiah and Ors.

12

, the composite

High Court observed that one of the plaint averments to the

effect that alleged alienation by way of sale deed was sham

and nominal and alienator had no right to sell the joint family

properties, without there being any division and the question

whether the possession was joint at the time of alleged

alienation is to be decided after trial of the suit and not at the

stage of numbering of suit by the office of the Court.‖

31. In Mohd Osman Ali (supra), the suit was filed seeking

declaration of correct date of birth, which was returned directing

the plaintiff to file all his original certificates for proving his correct

date of birth. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held

that, when a party files a suit in accordance with the procedure

prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules

of Practice, it is no part of the duty of the Court to examine, at the

stage of scrutiny and registration of the suit, whether the plaintiff

had adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his

prayer in the suit. If the plaintiff failed to file proper material to

substantiate his pleas, he could be doing so at his peril. But the

12

2004(1) An.W.R.252 (A.P)

40

Court could not at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file

the documents, which, in its opinion, were relevant for granting

relief. In Mohd Osman Ali (supra), direction was given to the II

Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to entertain the

suit filed by the plaintiff with the material that had been filed by

him and adjudicate the same in accordance with law.

32. Para No.3 of Mohd Osman Ali (supra) deserves

reproduction as under:

―3. Having considered the submissions of the learned

Counsel for the petitioner, I find force therein. When a

party files a suit, in accordance with the procedure

prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and Civil

Rules of Practice, it is no part of the duty of the Court to

examine, at the stage of scrutiny and registration of the

suit, whether the plaintiff has adduced sufficient

documentary evidence in support of his prayer in the suit.

If the plaintiff fails to file proper material to substantiate his

pleas, he will be doing so at his peril. But the Court

cannot, at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file

the documents, which, in its opinion, are relevant for

granting relief. Therefore, the learned II Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is directed to entertain the

suit filed by the plaintiff with the material that has been

filed by him and adjudicate the same in accordance with

law.‖

41

33. This court would also refer to a recent judgment of this

Court in Golivi Ramanamma and Challa Lakshmi and others

13

.

It was observed that to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings,

the parties should file the Encumbrance Certificate along with the

plaint, which will ease future litigation. Even the courts at the

numbering stage, in a given case, direct the parties to file

encumbrance certificate. Underscoring the encumbrance

certificate at the stage of numbering of the suit, it was observed

inter alia that, the dispute could be adjudicated effectively; even

the subsequent purchaser as well could be added and that the

plaintiff would always be in an advantageous situation. This

Court further observed that prominently the trial courts do not

insist on filing of an encumbrance certificate at the stage of

numbering the suit, however expressed the opinion that

insistence of filing of encumbrance certificate at the stage of the

numbering of the suit may arrest further delays and speed up the

trial of the suit at various stages.

34. In Golivi Ramanamma (supra), the plaintiff had filed the

suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the

sole defendant. The trial commenced. When the suit was coming

13

2024 SCC OnLine AP 5302

42

up for argument, the plaintiff filed I.A to implead the subsequent

purchasers, who had purchased the suit property or part thereof,

after the legal notice was issued to the defendant in the suit, by

the plaintiff prior to institution of the suit, but before its institution.

The application was rejected. Challenging the same, the C.R.P

was filed. The main issue was if the order rejecting the

impleadment application of such a subsequent purchaser was

justified and if such a subsequent purchaser was a necessary

party to be impleaded in the suit. It was in that context that the

observations were made, highlighting the importance and usage

of encumbrance certificate in judicial proceedings, by

emphasizing that upon the filing of encumbrance certificate, the

dispute could be adjudicated effectively, and who were the

subsequent purchasers could also be ascertained at the initial

stage of the suit. However, the filing of the encumbrance

certificate at the stage of registration of the plaint mandatorily,

or/and the effect or consequence of not filing it with the plaint that,

it would result in return of the plaint or the plaint shall not be

registered, it has not been so held, in Golivi Ramanamma

(supra). The question if the encumbrance certificate, is necessary

43

at the time of registration of the plaint was also not involved in

Golivi Ramanamma (supra).

35. The stage of registration of the plaint is ministerial. When

after such registration, the matter reaches to the court, it is for the

court to consider if all the relevant documents in support of the

pleadings have been filed or not, and if some more documents

are required by the plaintiff to file, the court may pass order

accordingly on the merits of the matter or may also grant time to

bring on record such other material, not before the court.

36. In the present case, the stage is of registration of the plaint.

What document is required in support of the pleadings to number

the plaint, is not for the registry to decide, unless filing of such

documents is a procedural requirement for registration of the

plaint under the procedure and the rules. At the stage of

registration of the plaint, which is ministerial act and not the

exercise of the judicial function, it cannot be by the registration

officer or officer acting in such capacity for determination as to

what documents the plaintiff should file in support of its pleadings.

If the document/material filed with the pleading, is sufficient or

not, to make out a case, is not the function of the registry. The

registry has to see only the compliance of the procedural

44

requirement at the time of numbering the plaint, as per the Civil

Procedure Code and the Rules, 1980.

37. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure as also the Rules, 1980 does not show that filing of the

encumbrance certificate at the stage of the plaint registration is

required by such rules. The registry while raising the objection

also, did not point out specifically any of the procedural rules

which make it mandatory to annex the encumbrance certificate

with the plaint. This Court is of the view that filing of the

encumbrance certificate with the plaint, may be advisable; may

give strength to the plaint pleadings; may even make out a case

in favour of the plaintiff and may be an effective document to

effectively adjudicate so many issues in the suit and may be also

arresting further delays or multiplicity of the proceedings, but still

in the absence of the rule, making its filing mandatory with the

plaint, the plaint cannot be returned or its registration refused by

the registry for not filing the encumbrance certificate with the

plaint.

iii) Maintainability of suit:

38. So far as the objection with respect to the maintainability of

the suit is concerned, the objection is to explain the

45

maintainability without seeking appropriate reliefs, if any, as per

law on the registered development agreement, coupled with GPA

etc., duly paying Court Fee. In this respect, in the objection

raised, mention of the judgments of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the

cases of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra), J. Vasanthi

(supra), Mumbai International Airport Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and

Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi

14

was made.

39. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack

de Sequeria (Dead) Through LRs

15

the Hon‘ble Apex Court

considered and observed that truth is guiding star in the judicial

process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The

entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find

out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage

themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. So, that is their

mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will

acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice

is based on the foundation of the truth. That was a case arising

out of a suit. The Hon‘ble Apex Court observed that world over,

modern procedural Codes are increasingly relying on full

disclosure by the parties. Managerial powers of the Judge are

14

(2021) 6 SCC 418

15

(2012) 5 SCC 370

46

being deployed to ensure that the scope of the factual

controversy is minimized. It was observed that in civil cases,

adherence to Section 30 Code of Civil Procedure would also help

in ascertaining the truth. The Hon‘ble Apex Court further

observed that pleadings are the foundation of litigation. In

pleadings, only the necessary and relevant material must be

included and unnecessary and irrelevant material must be

excluded. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important for

ascertaining the title and possession of the property in question.

In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties to give

all details of pleadings with particulars. The Hon‘ble Apex Court

also gave illustrations, not exhaustive, as to what details must be

given in a suit a person claims possession. Apart from the

pleadings, it was observed that the Court must insist on

documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those

documents would be relevant which come into existence after the

transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance as is claimed.

While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold, the Court must

carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents. The

Court will examine the pleadings for specificity as also the

supporting material for sufficiency and then pass appropriate

47

orders. It was observed that if the pleadings do not give sufficient

details, they will not raise an issue, and the Court can reject the

claim or pass a decree on admission. On vague pleadings, no

issue arises. Judges are expected to carefully examine the

pleadings and documents before framing of issues in a given

case. It was further observed that in dealing with a civil case,

pleadings, title documents and relevant records play a vital role

and that would ordinarily decide the fate of the case.

40. In Rahul S. Shah (supra), the Hon‘ble Apex Court issued

directions, to all courts dealing with suits and execution

proceedings, to be followed, to reduce delays in execution

proceedings and in larger public interest to sub serve the process

of justice, so as to bring an end the unnecessary ordeal of

litigation faced by parties awaiting fruits of decree and in larger

perspective affecting the faith of the litigants in the process of law.

One of the directions was that in a suit relating to delivery of

possession, the court must examine the parties to suit under

Order 10 in relation to third party interest and further exercise the

power under Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C asking parties to disclose

and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of

48

the parties including declaration pertaining to third party interest

in such properties.

41. From the aforesaid judgments, it is settled that the Court has

to ascertain the pleadings if the necessary pleadings, are there

for the claim made or the relief claimed and if the pleadings are

there, if they are supported by documents or not, but this function

is to be discharged by the Court on the judicial side at the stage

as contemplated in C.P.C as laid down in Maria Margarida

Sequeria Fernandes and Rahul S. Shah (supra). These

judgments, do not say that all these should be checked at the

stage of the registration/numbering of the plaint by the Registry

and for non-compliance the plaint should not be registered or

numbered, or that the matter should not be placed before the

Court. So, the objection raised by the Registry of the learned trial

Court on the maintainability of the suit based on Maria Margarida

Sequeria Fernandes (supra) and Rahul S. Shah, for non-

registration of the plaint is unsustainable. Such objection may be

on the judicial side and before the court.

49

42. The maintainability of a suit is always a question which is to

be decided by the Court. The present stage is the registration of

the plaint. After registration and placing of the plaint before the

Court for consideration, such question of maintainability may be

considered and answered. It is not the stage to raise the

question of maintainability, unless the maintainability of the suit

on the face of it is barred, by some statute, or the jurisdiction of

the Civil Court is ousted on the face of the legal provisions. In

such a case, also, the Registry can raise the objection, note down

the objection about maintainability, but, it cannot insist to explain

before the Registry, and satisfy about the suit maintainability.

The Registry has no power to decide such objection. After raising

the objection on maintainability of the suit, the matter is to be

placed before the Court, where the plaintiff has to satisfy the

Court about the maintainability. Deciding the maintainability of

the suit is a judicial function and not a ministerial function.

Consequently, even if there be a valid objection to the

maintainability of a suit, the plaint is not to be refused registration

nor is to be returned by the Registry but is to be placed before the

court, pointing out such objection.

50

43. In P. Surendran v. State by Inspector of Police

16

the

facts were that the First Information Report was registered

against three co-accused under different sections of Indian Penal

Code and Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The

accused/petitioner filed anticipatory bail application which was

dismissed by the District Principal Judge. He filed anticipatory

bail application before the High Court of Madras. The Registry

refused to number and list the matter before the Court, raising the

objection on maintainability of the anticipatory bail in view of the

alleged offence under SC/ST Act. The accused replied the

objection, but the High Court Registry rejected to numbering the

case and dismissed the anticipatory bail application on its

maintainability under SC/ST Act. Aggrieved by such non -

registering the case, the petitioner/accused approached the

Hon‘ble Apex Court. The question was whether the Registry

could have questioned the maintainability of the anticipatory bail

application. The Hon‘ble Apex Court observed that the nature of

judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial

function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that

16

(2019) 9 SCC 154

51

character. The distinguishing factor which separates

administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act

judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of

considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a

decision upon the same on consideration of facts and

circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice. The

Hon‘ble Apex Court referred to its previous Constitution Bench

judgment in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmi Chand

17

, in

which the criteria was formulated to ascertain whether a decision

or an act is judicial function or not. It was observed that the act of

numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections

taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of

maintainability required judicial application of mind by utilizing

appropriate judicial standard. It was held that the maintainability

being judicial function, the High Court Registry could not have

exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the

petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. It was held

that the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the

Registry, and direction was issued to the Registry to number the

petition and place before the appropriate Bench.

17

AIR 1963 SC 677

52

44. Paragraphs-8 to 11 of P. Surendran (supra) read as under:

“8. We may note that the aforesaid amendment has been

constitutionally challenged in various writ petitions listed before a

different bench of this Court along with the R.P. (Crl.) No. 228 of

2018, titled Union of India v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

However, the question before this Court herein is different, distinct

and limited. We are only concerned with the question whether

Registry could have questioned the maintainability of the Petition.

9. The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal

system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests

with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates

administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act

judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of

considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision

upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according

to the Rules of reason and justice. A Constitution Bench of five judges

in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand and Ors. AIR

1963 SC 677, formulated the following criteria to ascertain whether a

decision or an act is judicial function or not, in the following manner-

(1) it is in substance a determination upon investigation of a

question by the application of objective standards to facts found in the

light of pre-existing legal rule;

(2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting

their civil rights; and

(3) that the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes

contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party,

ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on

questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question of law on the

presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal

of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact.

53

(emphasis added)

The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The

objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of

maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing

appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A

of the SC/ST Act itself indicates at application of judicial mind. In this

context, we accept the statement of the Attorney General, that the

determination in this case is a judicial function and the High Court

Registry could not have rejected the numbering.

10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not

have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of

the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the

power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we

cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the

Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras

High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it

before an appropriate bench.”

(iv) OTHER OBJECTIONS:

45. Mumbai International Airport Private Limited (supra) is

on the point of Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C, as to which is necessary

or proper party to be impleaded in a suit.

46. In J. Vasanthi and others (supra) in regard to a suit for

declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and foisted, the

issue was what could be the proper court fee as also the locus

54

standi of the defendant, to raise plea of valuation for the payment

of proper court fee on the subject matter or under valuation.

47. Suhrid Singh (supra), is on the point of the court fee

payable in regard to the prayer for declaration that the sale

deeds were void and not `binding on the co-parcenary', and for

the consequential relief of joint possession and injunction.

48. The aforesaid cases in Mumbai International Airport

Private Limited (supra), J. Vasanthi (supra) and Suhrid Singh

(supra) are not on the point of at the stage of registration of the

plaint, but, even from those judgments, it follows that the

objection as regards necessary/proper party in a suit or the

valuation/under valuation of the suit; or court fee are to be

considered and decided by the court.

49. So far as the objection with respect to filing of pedigree

genealogy of Maddula family members between the person

claiming right from and through Maddula family members, it may

not be necessary for the petitioners to file family pedigree. At the

stage of registration of the plaint, insisting, filing the family

pedigree was not required, such insistence should not have been

made for registration of the plaint. If, during course of trial, it was

55

found necessary that the plaintiff had to prove the family

pedigree, appropriate steps could have been taken at that stage,

i.e., after the institution of the suit. Further, the family predigree is

a question which is to be proved on evidence. At this stage, only

the plaint is required to be considered to comply with the

procedure and the formalities, as required under Civil Procedure

Code read with Civil Rules of Practice, 1980. Such is also not the

requirement under the Rules.

VII. SUM UP:

50. All the 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 the litigant seeking for justice at

the entry point, the stage of registration and numbering of the

plaint, by raising the objections not provided or contemplated by

the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or/and the A.P. Civil

Rules of Practice and Circular Order, 1980, or such objections

which are required to be decided on the judicial side and based

on such objections not to register or number the plaint and return

the same again and again, results in keeping such person away

from the Court, which certainly results in delaying dispensation of

justice. Many plaints may accompany the applications for grant of

56

temporary injunction or grant for relief of urgent nature. The

Registry must not be oblivious of such aspect. It must be vigilant

to protect the rights of the litigants to have access to justice,

knocking the doors of the court at the stage of

numbering/registration. It shall ensure, not to insist compliance

with such objections, which are not contemplated by the Code of

Civil Procedure or Civil Rules of Practice, at the stage of

registration of plaint or which the registry in the discharge of its

ministerial function has to consider. Even if the objections have

the backing of the rules and there is non-compliance, the plaint

should not be returned, frequently, to comply with the objections,

in spite of re-submission with the reply. Registry, with the

objections and note/reply, should place the matter before the

Court for consideration and appropriate orders. The court has the

power to dispense with or grant time to comply with the

procedural requirements and at the same time, in appropriate

cases, where justice so demands, to pass appropriate orders

safeguarding the interest of the persons approaching the court.

VIII. Result:

51. For all the aforesaid reasons, this civil revision petition is

allowed with direction to the Registry of the Principal District

57

Judge, Visakhapatnam, to register the plaint and place the same

before the Court concerned.

52. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh

shall ensure the return of the plaint filed with C.R.P to the

petitioner‘s counsel, duly keeping on record set thereof as per

the procedure while returning the plaint.

53. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to all the learned

Principal District Judges of all the Districts in the State of Andhra

Pradesh.

54. The learned Principal District Judge(s) shall issue

necessary directions to registry of their respective District

Judiciary that while registering/numbering plaint, they shall,

specifically refer to the provisions under which such objection is

raised, so as to enable the parties or their counsels to effectively

deal with such objections.

55. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this judgment to

the Director, A.P. State Judicial Academy, Mangalagiri,

Amaravati.

56. No order as to costs.

58

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall also stand closed.

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

Dated:10.01.2025

Note:

L.R copy to be marked

Issue CC in one week.

B/o.

Gk

59

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024

Date:10.01.2025.

Gk.