IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI **** CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1605 OF 2026 M V KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. VENKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. WORKING AS DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING (SCERT) DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AND CONVENER, MEGA DSC-2025, HAVING OFFICE AT VIDYA BHAVAN, ATMAKUR VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 503. … Petitioner Versus GOOGLE LLC, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HAVING OFFICE AT LEVEL 8, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001, E-MAIL. SUPPORT- IN@QOOQLE.COM. AND ALSO AT 901 CHERRY AVENUE, SAN BRUNO, CA 94066, U.S.A. AND OTHERS … Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 04.06.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1605 OF 2026 % 04.06.2026 Civil Revision Petition No: 1605 of 2026 M V KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. VENKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. WORKING AS DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING (SCERT) DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AND CONVENER, MEGA DSC-2025, HAVING OFFICE AT VIDYA BHAVAN, ATMAKUR VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 503. … Petitioner Versus GOOGLE LLC, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HAVING OFFICE AT LEVEL 8, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001, E-MAIL. SUPPORT- IN@QOOQLE.COM. AND ALSO AT 901 CHERRY AVENUE, SAN BRUNO, CA 94066, U.S.A. AND OTHERS … Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P. Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel ^ Counsel for Respondents : --- < Gist : > Head Note : ? Cases referred : 1) 2025 SCC OnLine AP 50 2) 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2514 3) 2023 (6) ALT 16 4) 2025 (5) ALD 784 This Court made the following: APHC010289872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1605/2026 Between: 1. M V KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. VENKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. WORKING AS DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING (SCERT) DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AND CONVENER, MEGA DSC-2025, HAVING OFFICE AT VIDYA BHAVAN, ATMAKUR VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 503. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOOGLE LLC, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HAVING OFFICE AT LEVEL 8, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001, E-MAIL. SUPPORT-IN@QOOQLE.COM. AND ALSO AT 901 CHERRY AVENUE, SAN BRUNO, CA 94066, U.S.A. 2. META PLATFORMS INC, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HAVING OFFICE AT THE EXECUTIVE CENTRE, LEVEL 17, DLF CYBER CITY, BUILDING NO.5, TOWER A, PHASE III, GURUGRAM - 122 002, E-MAIL. Page 4 of 13 FBQOINDIA@SUPPORT.FACEBOOK.COM. 3. XCORP, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY / GRIEVANCE OFFICER, HAVING OFFICE AT 8TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE, 121 DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042, E- MAIL.QRIEVANCE-OFFICER-IN@TWITTER.COM. 4. TV9 NETWORK PVT LTD / TV9 TELUGU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR / AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HAVING OFFICE AT PLOT NO.97, ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034, 5. INDIRA TELEVISION LTD / SAKSHI TV, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR / AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HAVING OFFICE AT SAKSHI BUILDING, ROAD NO.1, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034. 6. JAGATHI PUBLICATIONS LTD / SAKSHI TELUGU NEWS DAILY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EDITOR / AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HAVING OFFICE AT SAKSHI BUILDING, ROAD NO.1, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034. 7. NTV TELUGU, REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR / AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HAVING OFFICE AT PLOT NO.564-A-19-LLL, ROAD NO.92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 033. 8. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, S/O. LATE SRI Y.S. RAJASEKHARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, FORMER CHIEF MINISTER OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRESIDENT OF YSR CONGRESS PARTY, RESIDENT OF VILLA NO.47-52, SURYADEVARA TOWNSHIP, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 501. 9. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE, BEING UNKNOWN AND PRESENTLY UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS, ANONYMOUS SOCIAL MEDIA HANDLES, PSEUDONYMOUS ACCOUNTS, PROXY USERS, RE-UPLOADERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF UNNAMED DIGITAL PAGES, CHANNELS AND GROUPS, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS PRESENTLY UNKNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WHO HAVE PUBLISHED, POSTED, UPLOADED, SHARED, CIRCULATED, REPUBLISHED, FORWARDED, AMPLIFIED OR ARE CONTINUING TO PUBLISH, CIRCULATE, HOST OR RE- UPLOAD THE FALSE AND DEFAMATORY CONTENT COMPLAINED OF IN THE PLAINT OR CONTENT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR THERETO. ...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 allow the Civil Revision Petition set aside the order / endorsement dated 02.06.2026 passed by the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Camp at Narasaraopet, in CFR No. 515 of 2026, returning the plaint on the ground 'previous objections not complied with properly' further direct the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, or such other competent court as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, to number the plaint in CFR No. 515 of 2026 forthwith and direct that suit in CFR No.515 of 2026 and the connected interlocutory applications be placed before any other competent Vacation Judge / available District Judge, other than the learned Presiding Officer who passed the impugned endorsement dated 02.06.2026, for consideration of numbering and urgent interlocutory reliefs, in accordance with law and within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 filing of the Certified copy in order 02.06.2026 passed by the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Camp at Narasaraopet, in CFR No. 515 of 2026, returning the plaint on the ground “previous objections not complied with properly” and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order / return endorsement dated 02.06.2026 passed by the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Camp at Narasaraopet, in CFR No. 515 of 2026, returning the plaint on the ground “previous abjections not complied with properly” Page 6 of 13 further direct the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, or such other competent court as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit, to number the plaint in CFR No. 515 of 2026 forthwith and direct that suit in CFR No.515 of 2026 and the connected interlocutory applications be placed before any other competent Vacation Judge / available District Judge, other than the learned Presiding Officer who passed the impugned endorsement dated 02.06.2026, for consideration of numbering and urgent interlocutory reliefs, in accordance with law and within such time as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri P.Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff in an un-numbered suit filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit vide CFR No.515 of 2026, dated 01.06.2026, on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-Additional Family Court, Guntur. The plaint was returned with certain objections on the same day, giving seven days for resubmission. 4. The plaint was re-submitted by complying with objections on 02.06.2026 as seen from the material papers filed along with the CRP at pages 57 and 58 and the docket endorsement at Sl.No.2 dated 02.06.2026. Again, the plaint was returned on 02.06.2026, with an endorsement “previous objections not complied with properly”. 5. Thereafter, learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo vide CFR No.534/02.06.2026. In the said memo, it was mentioned that the objections raised by the Court were complied with, and further requested an open court hearing. This court, at this juncture, is not going into the other aspects in the memo. 6. By docket order dated 02.06.2026, learned Judge, Vacation Court, Camp at Narasaraopet, returned the memo, after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and the order reads as follows: “(1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff material available on record. (2) The plaintiff has submitted a plaint (un-numbered) on 01.06.2026 and the same was returned with certain objections. The same was re-submitted with out of order petition on 02.06.2026. As it appears the objections dated 01.06.2026 were not complied with, the plaint again returned on 02.06.2026. (emphasis is mine) (3) Now after return of plaint the learned counsel for plaintiff filed this memo. The submission of learned counsel for plaintiff is that the plaintiff is having urgency, and that the plaint may be numbered. (4) When once a plaint is returned the proper course is to re- submit the same with compliance. If the party or the learned counsel feels that the objections taken by the office of the court are unreasonable or not sustainable, the party or the learned counsel can seek for hearing the matter on bench. However a party is not entitled for hearing on bench as a matter of right, and the court should feel that it is a fit case to be heard on bench. (5) Here the plaint was already returned. Without re- submission of that plaint the question of hearing on the compliance of objections does not arise. Hearing a return plaint without re- submission is un-known to procedure of law. (6) Hence, considering all these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is directed to re-submit the returned plaint, and to seek for hearing on bench. (7) Hence, I am of the humble view that the memo in the present form is not maintainable, and accordingly returned.” 7. Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel, while placing reliance upon the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao and Others Vs Ethalapaka Vanaja and Others1, would submit that repeated return of the plaint without looking into the compliance is impermissible. He would further submit that the return on 02.06.2026 that the previous objections were not complied with, without specifying which objection was not complied with, is objectionable. The observation of the learned trial Court that the party is not entitled to a hearing on the bench as a matter of right, in a private law remedy, is unwarranted and impermissible. 8. The point for consideration is: Whether the return of the plaint by endorsing that the previous objections were not complied with, without specifying which objection is permissible? 9. The above Civil Revision Petition was instituted by way of a lunch motion on 04.06.2026. Since the suit itself is not numbered, issuance of notice to the defendants in the suit, who are arrayed as respondents in 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 50 the revision, is not necessary. This court, at this juncture, is not going to the merits of the pleadings in the suit. In fact, this court, in this revision is confined to the legality of the return endorsement dated 02.06.2026, going by the arguments of the learned senior counsel and not dealing with the objections raised by the learned trial court. 10. As seen from the material available on record, the plaint was returned with certain objections on 01.06.2026 and the same was represented by the counsel for the plaintiff on 02.06.2026. Again, it was returned on 02.06.2026, with an endorsement that „previous objections were not complied with‟. 11. Thereafter, a memo vide CFR 534/02.6.2026 was filed. The learned trial court, after hearing the counsel, as seen from the endorsement, passed a docket order on 02.06.2026. 12. However, the challenge before this court in the above revision is regarding the return endorsement dated 02.06.2026, “previous objections not complied with, hence returned”, this court is not going into the other docket order. 13. As noted supra, the suit/plaint presented by the petitioner/plaintiff was returned with certain objections, precisely, seven in number, on 01.06.2026. The next day i.e. on 02.06.2026, the plaint/suit was resubmitted by complying with the objections. The compliance report is filed with the C.R.P on pages 57 and 58. In fact, it was also stated in the compliance report that if the compliance with the objections is not satisfied, requested to place the record before the bench for hearing. 14. Whether a request to call on the bench is permissible is no longer res integra. In Selvaraj Vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited2, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court elaborately discussed the aspect of returning the plaint at the numbering stage at paras 50 and 51, 52 observed as follows: 50. To sum up, the court may reject the plaint before numbering and entering it in the Register of Suits, if from a reading of the plaint, it is seen that the suit is barred by any law, or if it suffers from any procedural infirmity, as adumbrated supra. The Court, at that stage, cannot and is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the matter by testing the correctness of the plaint averments even prior to its institution. 51. In S.Parameswari Vs Denis Lourdusamy, (2011) 5 CTC 742, this court had held that after one return, the Court should post the matter in open Court, and invited arguments of the counsel on the question of maintainability and pass a judicial order. If the objection is upheld, the aggrieved party his/her rights……. 52. This court only adds a rider to it. In all cases where the Court chooses to reject the plaint for non-curing the defects mentioned (which may include the issue on exclusion of jurisdiction) it is necessary for the Court to follow the dictum in S.Parameswari Vs Denis Lourdusamy, (2011) 5 CTC 742 and post the matter before the Court, with or without the request of the plaintiff or the counsel concerned, and hear them. The duty to hear before a decision is made constitutes the soul of procedural fairness inbuilt in the Civil Procedure Code, and cannot be compromised. 15. Thus, as seen from the observations in Parameswari’s case, after one return, the Court should post the matter before the Court and hear the counsel with or without the request of the counsel. Indeed, such a 2 2021 SCC online Mad 2514 procedure safeguards the interests of the respective parties and also the valuable judicial time of the court. 16. The other aspect of the issue is when a plaint was returned with several objections, and the objections were complied with, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, returning the plaint with an endorsement that the previous objections were not complied with is impermissible. The Court shall specify which objections were complied with and which objections were not complied with. If such a course is implemented, it will help the counsel or the party in achieving effective compliance. At the same time, it is also the bounden duty of the Court to state all objections at once. The Court, normally, shall not raise objections one after another. Of course, as observed supra, in the second or third instance, the Court should hear the counsel and pass a judicial order regarding the objections. 17. It is also an established principle of law that at the stage of numbering of the suit, the court, normally, shall not go into the merits of the suit and decide as to whether the plaintiff would get the relief or not. In other words, the Court shall not undertake a roving enquiry at the stage of numbering of the plaint. The repeated return of the plaint should be avoided. See: Jillellamudi Jagadeesh and another Vs. Jillellamudi Subbayamma and others3 and Gorripati Veera Venakata Rao Vs. Ethalapaka Vanaja and others4. 18. In this case, as noted supra, the plaint was resubmitted on 02.06.2026. However, the return endorsement dated 02.06.2026 by the learned trial Court, which would indicate that the earlier objections were 3 2023 (6) ALT 16 4 2025 (5) ALD 784 not complied with. Indeed, the said endorsement runs contrary to the other docket endorsement dated 02.06.2026 at Sl.No.2. Without going into that aspect, since the plaint was already returned on 02.06.2026, unless the plaint is represented, the trial Court may not be in a position to appreciate the compliance. Of course, the learned trial Court observed the same in the other endorsement dated 02.06.2026. 19. As a word of caution, this Court reiterates that repeated return of the plaint is impermissible. The Court shall also indicate which objection was not complied with whenever the objections were complied with, as per the learned counsel. The Court shall, after one or two returns, hear the counsel and pass a judicial order. 20. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) The plaintiff shall resubmit the plaint by enclosing the compliance report filed along with the CRP at pages 57 and 58 again. b) The learned trial Court shall consider the compliance report and proceed in accordance with the law, vis-à-vis numbering the suit, if the Court is satisfied and the plaint is otherwise in order. c) If the learned trial Court is not satisfied with the compliance report, the Court shall hear the counsel for the plaintiff and thereafter pass a judicial order. d) This court makes it clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the pleadings, issues, the objections or the compliance report by the plaintiff at this juncture. e) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD