IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI • ; I f THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 927 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Return endorsement dated 11-02-2025 in CFR No. 385/2024 in O.S No. /2024 on the file of the X Additional District Judge at Gurajala. Between: ,•7 Jakkampudi Venkata Siva Prasad Rao, S/o. Sivaramiah, Cultivation, Aged 65 years, R/o Door No.4-59, near Peerlachavidi, Miryala village, Karempudi Mandal, Palnadu District. j ...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF y 't ' AND Nukkala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Narayana, Hindu, Business, Aged about 45 years, R/o. 4-261, Kanakamvari street. Beside State Bank of India, Macherla Road, Gurazala Town, Palnadu District. (Respondent is not necessary party in this CRP) ...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT n lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the X Additional District Judge at Gurajala to register the Plaint and adjudicate as per law and pass such. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. G. SUDHEER KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : - The Court made the following ORDER ; 1 APHC010177302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 927 of 2025 Between: Jakkampudi Venkata Siva Prasad Rao ...PETITIONER AND Nukkala Srinivasa Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: I.Mr.GSUDHEER KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: -None- 2 9 The Court made the following Order; Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Notice to the respondent is being not necessary. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is the Return Endorsement dated 11.02.2025 passed in C.F.R.No.385 of 2024 in O.S.No 72024 on the file of the Court of the X Additional District Judge at Gurajala. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner filed a suit seeking Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 15.02.2024 vide C.F.R.No.385 of 2024 against the defendant therein by paying the Court Fees on the sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- or in the alternative for refund of amount along with interest of 18% per annum etc. He submits that initially the plaint was returned on 04.11.2024 with office objections and after complying with the same, the plaint was represented on 11.12.2024. He submits that on 13.12.2024, the plaint was returned with office objections and on 20.12.2024, the same was represented after compliance. Referring to the other dates, the learned counsel submits that despite compliance with all the objections, again on 11.02.2025, the plaint was returned with an endorsement that the previous omission to be complied with properly. He submits that in fact, the relevant citations were also placed before the learned Trial Court for consideration, but without taking the same into account, as also compliance of the objections raised, the plaint is being . returned time and again and the same is not tenable. The learned counsel \ ■i- also referred to the decision reported in Mir FIrasath Ali Khan v. 3 Sayeeduddin Zafar’' and submits that the return of plaint with objections at the numbering stage is not sustainable. 4. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record, which discloses that certain objections were raised during the scrutiny of C.F.R.No.385 of 2024 and the petitioner / plaintiff represented the returned papers after making appropriate compliance. Be that as it may. 5. It would appear that after 11.02.2025, the returned C.F.R., is not represented and the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As could be seen from material placed before this Court, it would appear that the petitioner has not filed any memo nor sought the matter to be heard by the learned Trial Court on office objections. 6. Flad such a procedure been adopted, perhaps the necessity of filing the present Civil Revision Petition would not have occurred. Be that as it may. As the C.F.R., is returned with objections, which according to the petitioner even after answering the same / compliance, the Revision Petition is disposed of. giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate memo before the learned Trial Court to take up the matter / call the matter on Bench and hear the same on office objections. If the petitioner adopts such course of action, the learned Trial Judge shall pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel representing the petitioner / plaintiff. Such an exercise shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible. ^2018 (3) ALD 426 4 7. The Registry is directed to return the original file in C.F.R.No.385 of 2024 in O.S.No of 2024 on the file of the Court of the X Additional District Judge at Gurajala to enable the petitioner to file the same before the Trial Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT ^EGIST^AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The X Additional District Judge at Gurajala. 2. One CC to SRI. G. SUDHEER KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] The section officer VR Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 3. 4. THREE CD COPIES Chp TAC HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 ORDER CRP.No.927 of 2025 S’ 1gJUN2025 Current S*ciiOT DISPOSING OF THE C.R.P.