APHC010111882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 641 OF 2025 Between: Keesari @ Kesari Sathyamma @ Sathamma ...PETITIONER AND Kowkutla Sarada Kowkutla Sharada and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mrs.T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): -- The Court made the following ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) Since the grievance of the petitioner is that returning of the plaint despite complying with the objections, notice to the respondent-defendant is not necessary. 3) The petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.___ of 2025 (Unnumbered), on the file of the XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for the consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. At the time of scrutiny, as seen from the material placed before this Court, it would appear that the plaint is returned with certain objections on 11.02.2025 and the same was re-presented on 14.02.2025. Thereafter it was again returned on the same day mentioning the objections and seven days time was granted for compliance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 18.02.2025 the plaint was re-presented after complying with all the objections and a request was also made to call the matter on Bench in the event the Hon’ble Judge is not satisfied with the compliance made by the plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that instead of acceding to the request of the petitioner-plaintiff and taking up of the matter for consideration / orders on the objections, the plaint was returned on 20.02.2025. She submits that in the said circumstances the petitioner is constrained to file the present Revision Petition. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in CRP No.401 of 2021, dated 27.04.2022. 4) On consideration of the submissions made, as grievance of the petitioner / plaintiff appears to be that despite making a request for taking up the matter for consideration and passing appropriate orders on the compliance made by the petitioner-plaintiff, the plaint is returned again on 20.02.2025. When the plaint is returned with certain objections and the same are complied with according to the plaintiff and a request was made to take up the matter on Bench, in the event the Court is not satisfied with the compliance, the Court ought to have acceded to the request and should have passed the orders by giving an opportunity to the petitioner / plaintiff. In the present case, it appears that such a procedure has not been adopted. 5) Therefore, the Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, to take up the matter on the office objections and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/plaintiff, as expeditiously as possible, on receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. 6) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J DATE:21.03.2025. SSV THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 641 OF 2025 Date:21.03.2025. ssv