Andhra Pradesh HC directs trial court registry not to delay registration of complaint by emphasizing compliance of objections not made in CPC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that at the stage of registration of civil suits, the Registrar of the trial court shall not insist on the compliance of objections to a plaint which are not prescribed under the Code of Procedure civil law or the civil rules of practice.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari said, “He must ensure, and not insist, that objections which are not provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure or the rules of civil practice are respected, at the stage of recording the complaint or that the registry, in the exercise of its ministerial function, must consider. Even if the objections are supported by the rules and are not complied with, the complaint should often not be remanded to comply with the objections, despite resubmission with the response. The Registry, with the objections and note/response, should submit the matter to the Court for review and appropriate orders..”

The court also stated that the maintainability of an action is always a question to be decided by the Court. He said that after the complaint is registered and submitted to the court for review, this retention issue can be considered and resolved.

“This is not the time to raise the question of maintainability, unless the maintainability of the action is prima facie prohibited, by a law, or the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded in view of the legal provisions . In such a case also, the Registry can raise the objection, note the objection regarding maintainability, but it cannot insist on explaining before the Registry and satisfying the maintainability of the application. The Registry has no authority to resolve such an objection. After raising the objection on the maintainability of the action, the matter has to be taken to the court, where the plaintiff has to convince the court of the maintainability. Deciding on the maintainability of the process is a judicial function and not a ministerial function. Therefore, even if there is a valid objection to the continuance of an action, the complaint should not be refused registration or returned by the Registrar, but must be filed in court, emphasizing such objection.“, the High Court emphasized.

The court passed the order in a civil review petition filed against the final return of the complaint by the registry of the Principal District Judge’s office in Visakhapatnam with certain objections.

Background

A suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff in July 2024. The complaint was re-examined with some objections on July 16, 2024. Some of the objections which caught the attention of the plaintiff were those ordering the filing of the family pedigree (genealogy), a charge certificate and a certificate of market value.

The petitioner responded to the objections by stating that since the suit was not between the affected family members but only between persons claiming rights from and through the affected family members, it was perhaps not No need for plaintiffs to file a family pedigree. It was also contended that it was impossible to produce a charge certificate for the annexed property dating from 1946 and furthermore it was not required. Regarding the market value certificate, it was stated that the registration department does not give the same.

On July 22, 2024, the complaint was re-examined by requiring the encumbrance certificate, co-ownership documents and explaining the maintainability without going into the merits in accordance with the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh and J. Vasanthi and others v. N. Ramani Kanthammal.

Disputing the same, the present review plea has been filed.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the above-mentioned documents need not be demanded at the time of filing the complaint as they were not provided for in the procedural law for registration of the complaint.

Justice Tilhari referred to Order 7 of the CPC and relevant rules of the AP Civil Practice Rules, 1980, to understand what documents were required at the time of filing a complaint.

Referring to the Civil Procedure Rules and Circular Orders of the AP as well as the CPC, the High Court said that the aforesaid provisions do not specifically provide that the encumbrance certificate is one of those documents which are required to be registered on the list and filed with the complaint. .

“Thus, it cannot be the case that non-production or non-listing of the encumbrance certificate, along with the claim, results in the claim being returned to the registration stage.“, the court said.

Regarding filing of family genealogy, the court said that at the stage of registration of complaint, there was no need to insist on filing of family pedigree and such insistence would not should not have been made for the registration of the complaint. Furthermore, family ancestry is a matter that must be proven by evidence.

Authorizing the plea for review, the court declared: “Restrict the litigant seeking justice to the point of entry, at the stage of registration and numbering of the complaint, by raising objections not provided for or contemplated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or/and the Rules of Civil Practice and AP circular. Order of 1980, or such objections which have to be decided on the judicial side and based on such objections of not recording or numbering the complaint and returning it again and again, results in keeping that person away from the court, thereby certainly results in delaying the dispensation of justice.»

The court ordered that a copy of its judgment be sent to all principal district judges in all districts of the state. The court directed the principal judges to issue necessary directions to the concerned district judiciary that while registering/numbering the complaint, they should specifically refer to the provisions under which such objection is raised, in order to enable the parties or their lawyers to deal effectively with these objections. .

Case Title: Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao v. Ethalapaka Vanaja and Others

Counsel for the petitioner: VV Ravi Prasad.

Click here to read/download the order