1 APHC010544342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2699/2025 Between: 1.SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O NAJEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 11/543, YANADI COLONY, MYDUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.SAATRI JYOTI, , W/O SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI, D/O SAATRI POULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 5/23, CHOWDURVILLAGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2.THUDUMU NAGARAJU, S/O SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 107, SC COLONY, DEVAGUDI VILLAGE JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the trial court in returning and not numbering the (unnumbered) M.O.P number (filed vide S.R.No.11577/2024) on the file of the Principal district judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2 3. The petitioner hails from the Muslim religion, whereas respondent No.1 belongs to the Christian religion and respondent No.2 belongs to the Hindu religion. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was performed by their elders on 10.01.2024, according to the customs and usages of Christian rites and rituals at Hosanna Ministries, Kothapalli Village, Proddatur Mandal, without following the due procedure. The said marriage was also registered with the above church by the pastor. Before the marriage, the petitioner raised an objection regarding the difference in religion, and his father also objected, insisting that the marriage be performed according to Muslim customs and rites. In spite of this, respondent No.1 and her parents neither converted to the Muslim religion nor requested the petitioner to convert to Christianity. However, the said marriage was subsequently registered at the Grama Sachivalayam, Kothapalli Gram Panchayat, on 31.01.2024. The petitioner filed photographs of the marriage, the wedding card, and the marriage certificate issued by the Father of Hosanna Church dated 10.01.2024, and the Sachivalayam registration certificate dated 31.01.2024. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the marriage, the petitioner intended to divorce the 1st respondent on the ground of adultery. He further submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized and consummated as per Christian rites and rituals at Hosanna Ministries on 10.01.2024. The said marriage was recognized by the competent authority, i.e., the Marriage Licensee, under the provisions of Christian Marriage Customs and Rites, Part-I, Section 5 of the 3 Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, vide Registration No. 7970/AP/2020 dated 10.01.2024. He further submits that after issuance of the said marriage certificate, the petitioner got the marriage registered at the concerned Village Sachivalayam and obtained a Marriage Certificate from the Village Secretariat under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002. In view of the certificate issued by the Marriage Licensee under Part-I, Section 5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the petitioner is able to establish that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was duly solemnized and consummated. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek relief against the 1st respondent. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in C.R.P. No.1841 of 2024 dated 10.01.2025, where in it is stated that:- 29. In Jillellamudi Jagadeesh (supra), the plaint was returned with various objections, at the time of its registration, and on resubmission was returned again on different objections. This court considered the point: "whether roaming enquiry is necessary at the time of number the suit." And held that, at the stage of numbering the plaint, the courts normally shall not go into the merits of the matter. If on perusal of the plaint, the plaint disclosed cause of action, the court shall number the suit. If the plaintiff failed to prove his claim/case during the trial, eventually he would be non-suited. But, if the plaint disclosed cause of action, whether the relief, the plaintiff was entitled or not, would depend upon the evidence to be let in. At the stage of numbering of the suit, court, normally, shall not go into merits of the suit and decide as to whether the plaintiff would get the relief or not. 30. Paras 14 to 17 of Jillellamudi Jagadeesh (supra), are as under: 4 14. At the stage of numbering the plaint, the Courts normally shall not go into merits of the matter. If on perusal of the plaint and if plaint discloses cause of action, the Court shall number the suit. if the plaintiff fails to prove his claim/case during the trial, eventually he will be non-suited. But if the plaint discloses cause of action whether the relief, the plaintiff entitled or not, will depend upon the evidence to be let in. At the stage of numbering of the suit, court, normally, shall not go into merits of the suit and decides as to whether the plaintiff gets the relief or not. 15. In Syed Hadi Ali Moosavi Vs. Syeda Taquia Moosavi and Ors.", the learned single Judge of the Telangana High Court held as follows: 16. It was not proper for the Court below to express any opinion thereon at the stage of numbering of the plaint, particularly, when as pointed above, it was unnecessary for the petitioner to seek its cancellation. 17. As regards the reason (d) assigned by the Court below regarding defective description of the suit schedule property that the total extent of the property is not specifically mentioned in the schedule, it is not a ground to reject the plaint and at best the Court below can ask the party to submit the extent and incorporate the same in the plaint. 18. Regarding the reason (e) given by the trial Court that petitioner did not mention which part of the property is in his possession, that may be a matter to be gone into while considering grounds of relief in the suit and it is not a ground to reject the plaint. 19. As regards reason (1) that the plaint did not disclose proper and valid cause of action is concerned, para 12 of the plaint deals with the same It cannot, in my opinion, be 5 said to be inadequate warranting rejection of the plaint at the stage of numbering of the suit. Eventually, Court directed the Wakf Tribunal to number the suit. 16. In Pranit Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Goundra Yadaiah", while placing reliance upon Full Bench decision of this Court, in Chillakuru Chenchuram Reddy Vs. Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy (ILR 1969 AP 1042), that at the initial stage, the plaint averments and the documents in support of the plaint are only decisive and after appearance, pleadings of the defendants that also to be considered in deciding the sufficiency of Court Fee and this aspect of sufficiency of Court Fee is a mixed question of fact and law and not possible to reject the plaint straight away as sought for by the defendants and all the disputed facts raised require elaborate and roving enquiry that can be possible only by trial. 17. In R.V. Bhuvaneswari and Ors. Vs. Ponnuboina Chencu Ramaiah and Ors", the composite High Court observed that one of the plaint averments to the effect that alleged alienation by way of sale deed was sham and nominal and alienator had no right to sell the joint family properties, without there being any division and the question whether the possession was joint at the time of alleged alienation is to be decided after trial of the suit and not at the stage of numbering of suit by the office of the Court" 31. In Mohd Osman Ali (supra), the suit was filed seeking declaration of correct date of birth, which was returned directing the plaintiff to file all his original certificates for proving his correct date of birth. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held that, when a party files a suit in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules of Practice, it is no part of the duty of the Court to examine, at the stage of scrutiny and registration of the suit, whether the plaintiff had adduced sufficient documentary evidence in 6 support of his prayer in the suit. If the plaintiff failed to file proper material to substantiate his pleas, he could be doing so at his peril. But the 2004(1) An W.R.252 (AP) Court could not at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file the documents, which, in its opinion, were relevant for granting relief. In Mohd Osman Ali (supra), direction was given to the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff with the material that had been filed by him and adjudicate the same in accordance with law. 32. Para No.3 of Mohd Osman Ali (supra) deserves reproduction as under. “3. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find force therein. When a party files a suit, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and Civil Rules of Practice, it is no part of the duty of the Court to examine, at the stage of scrutiny and registration of the suit, whether the plaintiff has adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his prayer in the suit. If the plaintiff fails to file proper material to substantiate his pleas, he will be doing so at his peril. But the Court cannot, at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file the documents, which, in its opinion, are relevant for granting relief. Therefore, the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is directed to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff with the material that has been filed by him and adjudicate the same in accordance with law, at the time of registration of the plaint was also not involved in Golivi Ramanamma (supra). 35. The stage of registration of the plaint is ministerial. When after such registration, the matter reaches to the court, it is for the court to consider if all the relevant documents in support of the pleadings have been filed or not, and if some more documents are required by the plaintiff to file, the court may pass order accordingly on the merits of the 7 matter or may also grant time to bring on record such other material, not before the court. 36. In the present case, the stage is of registration of the plaint. What document is required in support of the pleadings to number the plaint, is not for the registry to decide, unless filing of such documents is a procedural requirement for registration of the plaint under the procedure and the rules. At the stage of registration of the plaint, which is ministerial act and not the exercise of the judicial function, it cannot be by the registration officer or officer acting in such capacity for determination as to what documents the plaintiff should file in support of its pleadings. If the document/material filed with the pleading, is sufficient or not, to make out a case, is not the function of the registry. The registry has to see only the compliance of the procedural requirement at the time of numbering the plaint, as per the Civil Procedure Code and the Rules, 1980. VII. SUM UP: 50. All the rules of procedure are hand mald of justice. Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice and not an obstruction. To restrict the litigant seeking for justice at the entry point, the stage of registration and numbering of the plaint, by raising the objections not provided or contemplated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or/and the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Order, 1980, or such objections which are required to be decided on the judicial side and based on such objections not to register or number the plaint and return the same again and again, results in keeping such person away from the Court, which certainly results in delaying dispensation of justice. Many plaints may accompany the applications for grant of temporary injunction or grant for relief of urgent nature. The Registry must not be oblivious of such aspect. It must be vigilant to protect the rights of the litigants to have access to justice, knocking the doors of the court at the stage numbering/registration. 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 8 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 has the power to dispense with or grant time to comply with the procedural requirements and at the same time, in appropriate cases, where justice so demands, to pass appropriate orders safeguarding the interest of the persons approaching the court. 5. He also relied upon Order VII Rule 14 CPC, which contemplates that the plaintiff is entitled to file documents not only at the time of filing the plaint but also during the course of proceedings with the prior permission of the Court. Hence, the rejection docket orders dated from 19.03.2025 and 17.09.2025 passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the said orders and direct the Court below to process the petition filed by the petitioner and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Hence, this revision petition. 6. On perusal of Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, it is observed that, since the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the 1st respondent according to the customs and usages of Christian rites and rituals at Hosanna Ministries, the petitioner is entitled to file a petition under the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, as well as under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. For a better understanding, reference may also be made to Sections 3 and 10 of the said Act. 9 7. On perusal of the docket orders passed by the court below from 19.03.2025 to 17.09.2025, it is observed that the objections raised before the court were complied with, except for the filing of the marriage certificate to be issued by the Marriage Licensing Officer/Registrar of Marriages appointed under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002, as under: “ (1) the Marriage Officer shall, as soon as the registration of marriage has been complete, give free of costs to the couple of marriage certificate in the form as provided in the schedule under his hand and seal; (2) Such certificate issued by the marriage officer shall be conclusive proof of the factum of the said marriage”. 8. 8. Considering the ratio laid down by this Court in C.R.P. No. 1841 of 2024 dated 10.01.2025, and upon perusal of Section 12 of the 2002 Act, as well as the certificate issued by the ministries, it can be presumed that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was duly solemnized. Therefore, insisting on the submission of a marriage certificate issued by the competent authority, i.e., the Registrar of Marriages, at the time of considering the registration of the original petition by the registry, cannot justify the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection of the said original petition by the registry is contrary to the ratio laid down in C.R.P. No. 1841 of 2024 dated 10.01.2025. Hence, the court below is directed to proceed with reference to the marriage certificate issued by the Father of Hosanna Church dated 10.01.2024, and the Sachivalayam registration certificate dated 31.01.2024 under Section 12 of the 10 Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002, and to process the matter in accordance with law. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. In continuation of proceedings respondents also admitted that the marriage as claimed, the court can proceed further that there is a valid marriage between them. The Registry is hereby directed to return the original petition SR No.1157 and represent it before the court below after obtaining the due signatures. 9. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 15.10.2025 klk klk 11 315 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P. NO: 2699 of 2025 .0.2025 klk