1 APHC010212152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1150/2025 Between: 1. R SRINIVASULU NAIDU, S/O LATE SUBBAIAH OCC EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 18-1-45/11, SANTHI NAGAR, K.T.ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. P.ETHIRAJULU., S/O GANGAMA NAIDU, OCC BUSINESS, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O 18-1-26, K.T.ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. C.V. JAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O C.S.V. RAMANA OCC HOUSE WIFE. AGED 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO.35, JAYANAGAR COLONY, BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. . R.KRISHANAKUMARI, . W/O VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, OCC HOUSE WIFE. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6, VELIGARAM VILLAGE AND POST, PALLIPATTUTALUK, THIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU. 5. . T. THYAGARAJA REDDY., S/O T.NARASIMHA REDDY, OCC HEAD MASTER, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 6. . T.LAKSHMI., W/O T. THYAGARAJA REDDY, OCC HOUSE WIFE. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. BOTH THE PETITIONERS 5 AND 6 ARE R/O D.NO.6- 8-11/37, N.G.O., COLONY TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. K C MURALI, S/O LATE K.C.RANGASWAMY, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. K C ANUSHA, D/O. K.C.MURALI, OCC EMPLOYEEE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 2 3. K C NISHA, D/O. K.C.MURALI, OCC EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O D.NO.6-1-16, R.S.GARDENS, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 4. K JAGADEESHWAR, S/O K.LAKSHMAIAH, OCC REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.16-13, 2ND FLOOR, MUNIREDDY NAGAR, MUTHYALAREDDYPALLIPANCHAYAT, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 5. NARUVENKATESWARARAO, S/O N. KOTILINGAM, OCC UNKNOWN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/OD.NO. 1-50/39/32-B, NEAR CHAITANYACOLLEGE VASUNDARA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, TIRUCHANUR ROAD, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Returned Endorsement Order Dt. 08-04-2025 in C.F.RNo.2256/2025 in unnumbered O.S.No. /2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,Tirupati IA 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 dispense with the certified copy of the Returned Endorsement dt.08-04-2025 in C.F.RNo.2256/2025 in /2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Tirupati and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SAI AKASH N Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI The Court made the following order: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by docket order/returned endorsement dated 08.04.2025 in C.F.R.No.2256/2025 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. 3 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioners filed suit vide C.F.R.No.2256/2025 to declare the decree and judgment dated 07/08/2023 passed in O.S.No.105/2021 along with consequential execution of proceedings and sale deed dated 05.02.2025 as null and void and for grant of permanent injunction. Since the said plaint was returned with certain office objections, upon request, the same was called on bench and heard and it was again, returned under order dated 08.04.2025. Aggrieved thereby the present revision petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri N.Sai Akash, learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds contended that, the Court below instead of numbering the suit, returned the same on the ground that O.S.No.137/2025 is still pending consideration and even before declaration of the plaintiffs title in O.S.No.137/2025, they are intending to start another round of litigation through the unnumbered plaint. He further contended that, while registering/numbering plaint, the court shall specifically refer to the provisions under which, such objection is raised, but in the present case, no such provision of law is referred to the impugned docket order 08.04.2025 under which the plaint was returned . In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao Vs Ethalapaka Vanaja1 and accordingly prayed to allow the revision. 1 2025:APHC:704 4 5. Perused the record. 6. A perusal of the impugned docket order shows that, the Court below has returned the plaint with an objection that the plaintiffs along with other persons have filed O.S.No.137/2025 for declaration of title over the very same plaint schedule property, which is still pending consideration and even before deciding the title in the said suit, the plaintiffs have proceeded to the present suit vide C.F.R.No.2256/2025 to declare the decree and judgment dated 07/08/2023 passed in O.S.No.105/2021 along with consequential execution of proceedings and sale deed dated 05.02.2025 as null and void and for grant of permanent injunction. This Court is of the firm opinion that, not numbering the plaint on the above said grounds is unsustainable. 7. Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 mandates the rejection of a plaint at any stage if it lacks a cause of action, is undervalued, is insufficiently stamped, is barred by law, or fails to comply with procedural rules. It acts as a threshold barrier to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or legally flawed litigation. In K.N.Reddy Vs Defence Personnel Co-Op. Housing Building society Limited, Secundrabad 2, it was held that once, the plaint discloses description and the cause of action in relation to the suit claim, Courts will not embark upon roving enquiry on these aspects while considering even in an application by the defendants for rejection of the plaint. In Samar Singh Vs Kedar Nath and others3, the Apex court held that the power to summarily reject conferred by 2 (2014) 6 ALD 218 3 1987 Supp. SCC 663 5 Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be exercised at the threshold of the proceedings and is also available, in absence of any restriction statutorily placed, to be exercised at any stage of subsequent proceedings. 8. In view of the same and taking into consideration the judgments referred supra, this Court is inclined to consider the present revision. In the light of conclusion arrived by this Court, order impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside, as such this Court is inclined to allow the civil revision petition. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned docket order/returned endorsement dated 08.04.2025 in C.F.R.No.2256/2025. The Court below is directed to number the suit if the same is otherwise in order other than the objections raised supra and decide the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 19.02.2026 BRS