APHC010718432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3828/2025 Between: 1. G.B. SADDAM HUSSAIN,, S/O G.B. BASHEER SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-766, PERNAMBATTU ROAD, V.KOTA TOWN AND POST, V.KOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517424 ...PETITIONER AND 1. T V S CREDIT SERVICES LTD, Rep., by its Manager/Authorized Signatory. Having office at D.No.8-161/A, Plot No.5, 3rd Floor, Ishitha Tower, New Balaji Colony, 0pp. ICICI Bank, Air Bypass Road, Tirupati Town, Tirupati District-517501. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. NJS,J C.R.P No.3828 of 2025 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present Revision Petition is filed against an order of return dated 18.12.2025 in C.F No.13292 of 2025 in O.S No. _ of 2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions by drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant material filed along with the revision petition. He submits that the petitioner presented the suit on 28.11.2025 by seeking certain reliefs against the respondent/defendant. He submits that on 28.11.2025, the plaint was returned with following endorsement: “How the suit is maintainable should be explained for the declaration”. He submits that immediately, on 01.12.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff represented the matter by setting out the explanation justifying the institution of the suit and its maintainability. 4. Notwithstanding with the same, the learned counsel submits that on 01.12.2025, the plaint was returned and the same was represented on 02.12.2025 with a request to the Hon’ble Court to hear the matter on Bench. He submits that thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing, on 18.12.2025 the plaint was returned without assigning any reasons, with the following endorsement: “Heard. Returned”. He submits that the said endorsement of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, without assigning any reasons is not sustainable. 5. The learned counsel also sought to advance arguments with reference to the various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of revision. He also asserts that as per the instructions from the counterpart, no separate NJS,J C.R.P No.3828 of 2025 3 order has been passed by the learned Trial Court and under those circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file the present revision petition. 6. As the matter is being heard and disposed of without going into the merits of the case, more particularly when the grievance is with regard to return of the plaint, notice to the respondent, otherwise, is also not necessary. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that, as seen from the endorsements made on the original plaint, complying with the objections, it is clear that the petitioner/plaintiff explained the circumstances for filing the suit against the respondent/defendant and the maintainability of the same. 9. The petitioner/plaintiff also requested the Court on 02.12.2025 to hear the matter and the request was acceded by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati. However, as seen from the impugned endorsement dated 18.12.2025, no reasons have been assigned as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner while representing the plaint is not acceptable, much less by assigning cogent reasons. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no separate order is passed gains significance, as in the impugned return endorsement nothing is stated to the effect that the reasons are stated by way of a separate order (V.S.O.). 11. Under the said circumstances, this Court see merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned endorsement is bereft of reasons and not sustainable in law. 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the endorsement dated 18.12.2025 is set aside and the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, shall pass appropriate reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, more NJS,J C.R.P No.3828 of 2025 4 particularly in view of the urgency expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Registry shall return the original plaint and other original documents, if any, to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under proper acknowledgment. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:02.01.2026 Note: Issue C.C in three days B/o. Ksj