Devulapalli Narayana vs Guntaka Venkata Ramana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1542 AP

       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.619 of 2022

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by

non-registering of the suit filed by the petitioner on the file of

the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nuzivid.

2. The petitioner herein presented a plaint on 31.10.2020

before the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nuzivid, seeking a decree and judgment against the

respondent herein for refund of the suit amount together with

interest, and the same was returned on 04.11.2020. On

22.12.2020, the petitioner complied with the objections and

re-presented the plaint. The petitioner also submitted a list of

citations on which he seeks to place reliance. As the plaint

was returned again, the same was re-presented on 06.7.2021

and while complying with the objections, a request was made

to call the matter before the Bench for hearing, if necessary.

However, the plaint was returned again on 08.7.2021 with an

endorsement that previous objections are to be complied

properly. Thereafter, it was resubmitted on 17.7.2021 while

endorsing that previous objections are complied with and a

judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court was also cited.

Vide endorsement dated 29.7.2021, the plaint was returned

stating that previous objections are to be complied properly.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

though the petitioner complied objections and re-presented

the plaint, the same is being returned without numbering the

same, which is not tenable. It is his submission that the

petitioner also referred to the case-law, which would aptly

satisfy the objections raised. In fact, a request was also made

to hear the petitioner, in the event, the objections complied

with are not satisfied, he submits. Placing reliance on the

judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in

Manthina Sitarama Raju vs. Kanda Rambabu1, the learned

counsel would further submit that the practice adopted by

the Office/Registry of the Trial Courts in repeatedly returning

the plaint, on one objection or the other, touching upon the

merits and demerits of the case, without placing the matter

before the Court for hearing is deprecated. He accordingly

seeks appropriate directions for registering the suit.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel and perused the material on record.

5. As seen from the various endorsements, it would appear

that the petitioner represented the plaint by complying with

the office objections. A specific endorsement dated 06.7.2021

was also made to the effect that the matter may be called

before the Bench for hearing, if necessary. Despite the same

2021 (1) ALD 1

and instead of calling the matter before the Bench for orders/

hearing on the office objections, the Registry of the Trial

Court is bent upon to return the plaint again and again,

which cannot be countenanced. As pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, such an action on the part

of the Office/ Registry of the Trial Courts was found fault with

by the learned Judge in the judgment referred to supra.

6. Be that as it may. Since the petitioner had complied

with the office objections and placed reliance on the case-law

in support of his submissions, this Court deems it

appropriate to dispose of the present Revision Petition with a

direction to the learned Trial Court to take up the matter,

hear the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the office

objections and pass appropriate orders.

7. Registry is directed to return all the original documents

including docket proceedings filed along with the present

Revision Petition, to enable the learned counsel for the

petitioner/plaintiff to re-present the same before the Trial

Court. If the petitioner re-presents the plaint along with the

material, the learned Trial Judge shall take necessary action,

as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of

four weeks from the date of re-presenting the plaint.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J March 30, 2022.

Note:

Dispatch order copy in one week.

(By order) vasu.