Plaint — Return before registration — Scope of scrutiny At the stage of registration of a plaint, the Court cannot examine whether certain defendants are unnecessary or not proper parties; such an objection is premature and beyond the scope of scrutiny at the threshold stage. (Paras 4, 7)

advocatemmmohan

Plaint — Return before registration — Scope of scrutiny

At the stage of registration of a plaint, the Court cannot examine whether certain defendants are unnecessary or not proper parties; such an objection is premature and beyond the scope of scrutiny at the threshold stage.
(Paras 4, 7)

---

Order I CPC — Proper party vs necessary party

Even where no relief is claimed against a party, such party can be arrayed as a defendant if his presence is required for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute; distinction between “proper party” and “necessary party” reiterated.
(Paras 5–6)

---

Impleadment of public authorities — Declaratory suit

In a suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction, inclusion of revenue authorities and the State as defendants cannot be rejected at the stage of registration merely on the ground that no specific relief is claimed against them.
(Paras 4–7)

---

Section 80 CPC — Notice — Effect on registration

Once procedural compliance regarding Section 80 CPC is addressed, the Court cannot insist on deletion of government defendants on the ground that they are allegedly unnecessary, at the stage of returning the plaint.
(Paras 4, 7)

---

Article 227 — Interference justified

Return of plaint on a premature and legally unsustainable objection amounts to a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras 7–8)

---

ANALYSIS

The Civil Revision Petition was filed challenging the order dated 21-08-2025 of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, by which the plaint was returned before registration, directing the plaintiffs to delete defendant Nos.7 to 9 (Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, and the State) from the array of parties (Paras 2–4).

The petitioners instituted a suit for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction, impleading private defendants (Nos.1 to 6) as well as revenue authorities and the State (Nos.7 to 9). Initially, an objection was raised regarding absence of notice under Section 80 CPC, which the plaintiffs addressed by invoking Section 80(2) CPC. However, the Trial Court again returned the plaint, holding that defendant Nos.7 to 9 were not necessary parties (Para 4).

The High Court held that reliance on the distinction between proper party and necessary party was misplaced at the registration stage. Referring to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji, the Court reiterated that even if no relief is sought against a party, such party can be impleaded if its presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication (Paras 5–6).

The Court emphasised that the question whether a suit is bad for misjoinder or for impleading unnecessary parties is a matter to be examined during trial or at final adjudication, and not at the time of registration of the plaint (Para 7).

It was held that when other procedural requirements for institution of a suit are satisfied, the Court is bound to register the plaint and cannot return it on speculative or premature objections. The impugned order was therefore found to suffer from a legal flaw (Paras 7–8).

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order returning the plaint and directed the Trial Court to register the suit, if otherwise in order (Para 8).

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

At the stage of registration of a plaint, the Court cannot return the plaint on the ground that certain defendants are not necessary or proper parties; even where no relief is claimed against a party, its impleadment cannot be rejected at the threshold if its presence may aid complete adjudication, and such objections can be examined only during trial or final decision.