APHC010222652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1215/2025 Between: 1. VAJRALA VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. VAJRALA KUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. CHILUKURIVARI GUDEM, H/O. PULLURU, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521 230 ...PETITIONER AND 1. VAJRALA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. VAJRALA BRAMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. CHILUKURIVARI GUDEM,H/O. PULLURU, MYLAVARAM MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521 230 2. VAJRALA SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. VAJRALA BRAMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. CHILUKURIVARI GUDEM, H/O. PULLURU, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521 230 3. VAJRALA SIRISH KUMAR REDDY, S/O. VAJRALA SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. CHILUKURIVARI GUDEM, H/O. PULLURU, MYLAVARAM MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521 230, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 8-3- 229/W/31/C, 2ND FLOOR, VENKATAGIRI JUBILEE HILLS, ROAD NO. 10, SHAIKPET, HYDERABAD - 500033 4. MUPPUDI PRABHAVATHI, W/O. M.RAMMOHAN REDDY, AGED 2 ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. 52-1/3-2C, VETERNARY COLONY, NEAR VINAYAK THEATRE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRIC ...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 the above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by return endorsement dated 04.02.2025 in C.F.R. No.619 of 2025 in XV Addl.District Judge, Nuziveedu, filed under Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 CPC filed by the Petitioners / Plaintiffs for partition and separate possession with other and further allied reliefs, by properly pleading with submitting the averments in the plaint against the defendants, returned and represented, and though represented with proper representation by duly representing by complying all the querries, despite the same the Ld. Trial Court is continuously returning the present unnumbered suit without taking in file. Thus the present Civil Revision Petition with the. following grounds among the other 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 return endorsement dated 04.02,2025 in C.F.R. No.619 of 2025 in XV Addl.District Judge, Nuziveedu In the above C.R.P. and pass IA NO: 2 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 return endorsement dated 04.02,2025 in C.F.R. No.619 of 2025 in XV Addl.District Judge, Nuziveedu In the above C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VASU SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the return endorsement dated 04.02.2025 in C.F.R.No.619 of 2025 on the file of the XV Additional District Judge, Nuziveedu, filed under Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 CPC filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for partition and separate possession with other and further allied reliefs, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. Heard Ms.Botta Aruna, learned counsel representing Sri Vasu Sekhar Peravali, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit on the file of the XV Additional District Judge, Nuziveedu, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties along with consequential reliefs, by properly drafting the plaint by incorporating necessary pleadings and averments against the defendants. However, the Registry/Section concerned of the Court below raised certain objections and returned the plaint. Though the petitioners re-presented the plaint by complying with the objections, the same was again returned more than one time without numbering the suit. He further submitted that once the petitioners expressed their readiness to comply with the objections or disputed the same, the proper course for the Registry was to call the matter on bench for appropriate judicial orders. 4 Instead of doing so, the plaint was repeatedly returned without numbering the suit, thereby denying the petitioners an opportunity to have their case adjudicated in accordance with law. He further submitted that this Court in C.R.P.No.1841 of 2024 has held that when objections raised by the Registry are disputed, or when the party seeks judicial determination on such objections, the proper course is to place the matter before the Presiding Officer instead of repeatedly returning the plaint, as such, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 4. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the petitioners was returned by the Registry/Section concerned of the Court below on certain objections and the same was not numbered. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite compliance and request for judicial consideration, the matter was not placed before the Court. As held by this Court in C.R.P.No.1841 of 2024, repeated return of the plaint without placing the same before the Court is not in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, as the petitioners have an intention to request the Court below, this Court is inclined to dispose of the CRP with the following direction: <Registry is directed to give the original plaint copy to the petitioners to place the same before the Court below. On such request 5 made by the petitioners, the trial Court shall hear on objections and pass orders as expeditiously as possible.= 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 18th February, 2026 RKS