Andhra Pradesh HC Directs Trial Court Registry Not To Stall Registration Of Plaint By Insisting On Compliance Of Objections Not Given In CPC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that at the stage of registration of civil suits, the trial court registry must not insist on compliance of objections to a plaint that are not mandated under the Civil Procedure Code or the Civil Rules of Practice Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari said, “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 also said that maintainability of a suit is always a question which is to be decided by the Court. It said that after registration and placing of the plaint before the Court for consideration, such question of maintainability can 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," the high court underscored. The court passed the order in a Civil Revision Petition filed against the final returnment of the plaint by the registry in the office of the Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam with certain objections.BackgroundA partition suit was instituted by the petitioner in July, 2024. The plaint was retuned with some objection on July 16, 2024. Some of the objections that stood out to the plaintiff were the ones directing filing of family pedigree (genealogy), an encumbrance certificate and a market value certificate.The petitioner replied to the objections stating that since the suit was not between the concerned family members and only between people claiming right from and through the concerned family members, it may not be necessary for the plaintiffs to file family pedigree. It was also submitted that encumbrance certificate for the schedule propertyfrom 1946 is impossible to be produced and moreover it was not required. In relation to the market value certificate it was stated that registration department was not giving the same. On July 22 2024 the the plaint was retuned again mandating the encumbrance certificate, joint possession documents, and explaining maintainability without going into the merits as per the judgements rendered by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh and J. Vasanthi & others vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal. Challenging the same, the present revision plea was filed. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the above mentioned documents need not be mandated at the time of filing of the suit as they were not contemplated by the procedural law for registration of plaint. Justice Tilhari referred to Order 7 of the CPC and relevant Rules of the AP Civil Rules of Practice, 1980 to understand what documents were mandated at the time pf filing of a plaint. Referring to the A.P. Civil Rules of Procedure and Circular Orders as well as the CPC the high court said that 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," the court said. With respect to filing of family genealogy, the court said that at the stage of registration of the plaint, insisting on filing the family pedigree was not required, and such insistence should not have been made for registration of the plaint. Further, the family predigree is a question which is to be proved on evidence. Allowing the revision plea court thus said, “To restrict the litigant seeking for justice at the entry point, the stage of registration and numbering of the plaint, by raising...

Andhra Pradesh HC Directs Trial Court Registry Not To Stall Registration Of Plaint By Insisting On Compliance Of Objections Not Given In CPC

Fareedunnisa Huma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Fareedunnisa Huma

Andhra Pradesh HC Directs Trial Court Registry Not To Stall Registration Of Plaint By Insisting On Compliance Of Objections Not Given In CPC

Fareedunnisa Huma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Fareedunnisa Huma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers