Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Return of plaint — Pre-registration stage — At the stage of scrutiny and registration of a plaint, the Court cannot return the plaint on the ground that certain defendants are not necessary or proper parties. Such objection is premature and can be examined only during trial or at the stage of final adjudication.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Return of plaint — Pre-registration stage —
At the stage of scrutiny and registration of a plaint, the Court cannot return the plaint on the ground that certain defendants are not necessary or proper parties. Such objection is premature and can be examined only during trial or at the stage of final adjudication.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Parties to suit — Proper party and necessary party —
Even where no specific relief is claimed against a party, such party may still be impleaded as a proper party if his presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Notice to Government and public officers —
When a suit is filed impleading Government officials and the State, and the plaintiff invokes Section 80(2) CPC, the plaint cannot be returned solely on the ground that such defendants are allegedly unnecessary parties.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Registration of plaint — Duty of Court —
Once the plaint satisfies the procedural requirements for institution of a suit, the Court is bound to register the plaint and cannot adjudicate upon merits or propriety of impleadment at the threshold stage.

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction —
An order returning a plaint on a premature and legally untenable objection amounts to a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

CASE FACTS

• The petitioners are plaintiffs who filed a suit for:

  • declaration of title over the plaint schedule property, and

  • consequential permanent injunction.

• Along with defendant Nos.1 to 6, the plaintiffs impleaded:

  • the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal,

  • the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Collector, Vijayawada, and

  • the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector
    as defendant Nos.7 to 9.

• The Trial Court initially returned the plaint on the ground of non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC.

• After re-presentation with a petition under Section 80(2) CPC, the Trial Court again returned the plaint, holding that defendant Nos.7 to 9 were not necessary parties and directing deletion of their names.

• Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

---

ANALYSIS

• The High Court examined the scope of scrutiny at the pre-registration stage of a plaint.

• The Court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji, wherein the distinction between necessary parties and proper parties was explained.

• It was reiterated that:

  • even if no relief is sought against a party, such party may still be a proper party; and

  • whether a party is unnecessary is a matter to be decided during trial, not at the stage of registration.

• The Trial Court was found to have exceeded its jurisdiction by directing deletion of defendants and returning the plaint on a premature objection.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. At the stage of registration of a suit, the Court cannot return the plaint on the ground that certain defendants are not necessary or proper parties.

2. A party against whom no relief is claimed may still be impleaded as a proper party if his presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication.

3. The issue of misjoinder or impleadment of unnecessary parties is to be decided during trial and not at the threshold stage of institution.

4. Returning a plaint on such premature grounds constitutes a legal flaw warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judge: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Judgment Date: 08.01.2026