Date of reserved for orders: --- Date of pronouncement : 02.07.2026 Date of uploading : 02.07.2026 APHC010320072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1739/2026 Between: 1. S. ANIL KUMAR, S/O LATE JANARDHANA NAIDU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O BUCHINAIDU KANDRIGA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOLANDI SUJATHA, D/o Late Govinda Raju Aged 45 years, R/o Ramji Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District-524002. ...RESPONDENT 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 present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 02.06.2026 made of 2026 on the file of the Court of C.F.NO.1011 of 2026 in F.C.O.P.No. the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 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 certified copy of Docket Order dated 02.06.2026 made in C.F.No.1011 of 2026 in F.C.O.P.No. of 2026 before the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District in the interest of Justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed FCOP vide C.F.No.1011 of 2026 on 27.02.2026 before the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Nellore. The said FCOP was returned on 23.03.2026 with an endorsement “How the petition is maintainable under the Section of law”. The petitioner represented the same on 01.04.2026 with the following endorsement: “As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court citation in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2161 any person can file petition U/s 7 and 8 to declare matrimonial status, whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief (copy of citation enclosed)”. 3. Thereafter, the FCOP was returned on 02.06.2026 with the following objections: 1. Previous objection not properly complied. 2. How the petition is maintainable as there is no marriage between the petitioner and respondent? Hence returned, Time 7 days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the objections dated 01.06.2026 were complied with by making the necessary endorsement, without considering the same, returning the OP is objectionable. The court at the stage of numbering normally cannot conduct a roving enquiry. Page 3 of 4 5. The point for consideration is: Whether returning the plaint without considering the compliance endorsement is legally sustainable? 6. In Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited1, a learned single judge of the Madras High Court elaborately discussed the aspect of returning the plaint at the numbering stage at Paragraphs 50 51 & 52 observed thus: 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. 7. 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 1 2021 SCC online Mad 2514 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 others2 and Gorripati Veera Venakata Rao Vs Ethalapaka Vanaja and others3. 8. In the case at hand, as noted supra, when the plaint was returned, the same was represented by endorsing that the objections had been complied with. If the Court is not satisfied with the endorsement, the same can be decided by passing a judicial order. Returning the plaint again and again, in the considered opinion of this court, is unsustainable. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to represent the FCOP by complying with the objections dated 02.06.2026 once again. If the Court below is not satisfied with the compliance endorsement, the Court shall hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and pass a judicial order regarding maintainability. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 2 2023 (6) ALT 16 3 2025 (5) ALD 784