Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao vs Ethalapaka Vanaja on 10 January, 2025
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 Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No
fair copy of the Judgment?
____________________
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
6laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suhrid Singh
vs. Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC 112 and J. Vasanthi &
others vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal dated 10.08.2017 by
impleading parties though as per law including Mumbai
International Airport Pvt., Ltd., vs. Regency convention
Center & Hotels & others dated 06.07.2010 and Rahul S.
Shah for enabling the court to effectively and completely
adjudicate the suit.
III. SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS:
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners complied with the objections at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of 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 Limited1,
(2) Jellellamudi Jagadeesh and another vs.
Jillellamudi Subbayamma and others2,
(3) Mohd. Osman Ali vs. Second Junior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad and another3,
(4) Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs.
Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited
and others4,
(5) J. Vasanthi and others vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal
(died) represented by Legal representatives and others5
and1
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 others6.
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
15memorandum 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
16value, 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 HANDMAID 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. Gangabai7 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 prescribing7
(2008) 17 SCC 117
20procedure 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. Rajkumar8 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 Maharashtra9 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
22basic purpose of a statute or hamper the pursuit of justice unless
violation of the procedure would itself amount to grave injustice.
66. In Sangram Singh 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
28upheld, 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 Not permissible
scrutiny of plaint
Cause title and Yes. Can be verified if
form of pleading there is a substantial
(Order VI Rule 3) compliance of Appendix
A.
Parties to suit Yes. Required to the
Order VII Rule 1 extent required, and if
29
(a) to (b) and the suit is laid in a
Rule 4 representative capacity.
Maintainability Yes. Only to the extent ØSufficiency or adequacy
(cause of action) of ascertaining if the of pleading cannot be gone
Sec.9 & Order VII plaintiff has a legally into. Hence grounds of
Rule 1(e) recongised or fraud as in Order VI Rule 4
enforceable right on a CPC cannot be insisted.
plain reading of the ØProof of any of the
plaint, and no more. allegations in the plaint
should not be sought.
ØMerits of the matter or
correctness of the
pleadings cannot be gone
into.
Maintainability ØIf the inherent
(Jurisdiction) jurisdiction of the Court
Sec.9 CPC 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 Yes. Where a suit is ex Newer or clarificatory
(Limitation) facie barred by limitation. material or proof of any fact
Only the allegation in the pertaining to limitation
plaint should be the should not be insisted.
basis. However, where
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 Yes.
Territorial and
Pecuniary
jurisdiction Order
Sec.15 to 21 r/w
Order VII Rule
1(f)
Money suits If precise amount is
Order VII Rule 2 stated
However, sufficiency of the
description cannot be gone
into.
Description of Yes Again, if there is any
Property Order variance of extent or
VII Rule 3 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 Yes, but limited to Appropriateness or
Rule 7 and 8 ascertaining if a relief at suitability of the relief
all is sought 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 Yes. But the basis for Proof of value of subject
court fee the the valuation must matter of the suit such as
be as stated by the expert’s valuation report
plaintiff. cannot be insisted.
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
Documents If enclosed can be Production of the
verified with the list documents cannot be
provided in the plaint the insisted.
possibility of laying a suit It needs to be realised that,
24 × 7. No law compels given the level of poverty
any person to possess and illiteracy in this country
all the documents all the it cannot be expected that
time either. A cause of every one will possess all
action for the suit the documents all the time,
invariably arises at a anticipating approach the
time convenient to the Court to protect his/her
defendant, but it is the right. All that the plaintiff
plaintiff who has to 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 Yes
Order VI Rule 14
Verification of Yes
plaint Order VI
Rule 15
1. Copy of plaint and
affidavit.
2. Vakalath.
3. Any application for
leave to sue
4. Process along with
Accompanying copies of plaint.(Plaint
papers 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
11
Yadaiah , 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 this10
2019 (4) ALT 321 (TS)
11
2015 (1) ALT 352
39aspect 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.
12
Ponnuboina Chencu Ramaiah and Ors. , 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 others13.
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 Gandhi14 was made.
39. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack
de Sequeria (Dead) Through LRs15 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 Police16 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 Chand17, 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
54standi 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
55found 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
57Judge, 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
59THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024
Date:10.01.2025.
Gk.