APHC010606342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 245/2025 Between: 1. SMT CHUNDRU VARALAKSHMI, WIFE OF SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF TIPPABHOTLAVARI ST., VELPUR, TDMC ...PETITIONER AND 1. BANDARU SATYANARAYANA, son of Narayudu Hindu, Cultivation, aged 61 years. Near KomatlaSuryamKirana Shop, Velpur, TDMC ...RESPONDENT 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 toAggrieved by the written endorsement in OS No 55/2018 date 16-02-2024 court below the revision petitioner is filing the Revision before the Honourable High court IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 VS,J C.R.P.NO.245 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 pleased to direct the Court below to take back the original plaint on file, frame Issues according to law and proceed further with the trial of the suit. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS MALLAMPALLI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.NO.245 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 06.12.2024 in O.S.No.55 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tanuku, returning the plaint. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.55 of 2018. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint. Later, the suit went on several adjournments up to 16.02.2024. On 16.02.2024 the plaint was returned on the ground that the suit was filed for declaration without seeking consequential relief. Challenging the said return of plaint, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4 VS,J C.R.P.NO.245 OF 2025 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Court below grossly erred in returning the plaint. The Court below failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and that the Court below committed an illegality in returning the plaint. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the court below was right in returning the plaint as the plaintiff filed the suit without seeking the consequential relief, besides a relief of declaration and that the order under revision is well founded and hence, the C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed. 7. The only point that arises for consideration herein is whether the court below is justified in returning the plaint vide its order dated 16.02.2024. 8. Before dealing with the issue herein, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as under: 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.—Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion 5 VS,J C.R.P.NO.245 OF 2025 make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. 9. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that a person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right and in that case, the plaintiff need not ask for any further relief. However, as per the proviso thereto, in a case where any person is able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so, the court shall not make any such declaration. 10. In the case on hand, a thorough reading of the contents of the plaint would show that since the defendant is denying the right of the plaintiff on the suit property and interfering with her possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration of her right on the suit property. As per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a person entitled to any legal character or to any right to property, may not ask for any further relief. It is a settled law that in the case where further relief is 6 VS,J C.R.P.NO.245 OF 2025 required to be sought, the court may ask a party, who failed to seek the further relief, for inclusion of the further relief by amendment of plaint as per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint. As per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff has a right to amend his plaint. But, the court below, instead of instructing the plaintiff, to amend the plaint simply returned the same. Even assuming that the further relief is required to be sought, the court below ought to have returned the plaint at the earliest point of time when it is registered, which it did not do so. However, nearly after lapse of 6 years from the date of registration of plaint, the plaint was returned that too after filing of the written statement when the suit is coming up for framing of issues. Instead of allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint, simply returned the plaint by the order under revision. Thus, the order under revision suffers from serious legal infirmity or irregularity, warranting interference of this Court. Hence, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the endorsement dated 06.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.55 of 2018 is hereby set aside. However, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tanuku may allow the plaintiff to amend the 7 VS,J C.R.P.NO.245 OF 2025 plaint, in the event the further relief is required to be sought, in accordance with the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and on filing such application, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) may consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made herein. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:17.10.2025 LSP 8 VS,J C.R.P.NO.245 OF 2025 248 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 245/2025 Date:17.10.2025 LSP