Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Plaint — Return of plaint — Requirement of reasons — Judicial duty
Held, when a plaint is returned after hearing the plaintiff and after representation complying with objections, the Court is bound to assign reasons for rejecting the explanation; a mere endorsement such as “Heard. Returned.” without reasons is unsustainable in law.
(Paras 9–11)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII — Return of plaint — Endorsement — Validity
Held, where no separate order is passed and the endorsement on the plaint does not indicate that reasons are contained in a separate speaking order, the return of plaint is vitiated for want of reasons.
(Paras 10–11)
Judicial Orders — Reasoned order — Necessity
Held, judicial discipline requires that reasons must be assigned, at least briefly, while returning a plaint, especially after hearing the plaintiff on maintainability; absence of reasons renders the order arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
(Paras 9–12)
Civil Revision — Scope — Procedural illegality
Held, a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable where the grievance is confined to procedural illegality in returning the plaint without a reasoned order, without entering into the merits of the suit.
(Paras 6, 11–12)
II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS
The petitioner presented a plaint on 28.11.2025 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, seeking declaratory and other reliefs against the respondent.
On 28.11.2025, the plaint was returned with the endorsement:
“How the suit is maintainable should be explained for the declaration.”
The petitioner represented the plaint on 01.12.2025, furnishing an explanation justifying the maintainability of the suit.
Despite such representation, the plaint was again returned on 01.12.2025, and thereafter represented on 02.12.2025 with a request to hear the matter on Bench.
The learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, heard the matter, but on 18.12.2025, returned the plaint with a cryptic endorsement:
“Heard. Returned.”
No separate speaking order was passed, nor was the endorsement indicative of reasons being recorded elsewhere.
Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.
III. ANALYSIS OF LAW
The High Court confined its examination strictly to the procedural legality of the return of the plaint and consciously refrained from entering into the merits of the suit or the question of maintainability.
The Court noted from the record that:
the petitioner had complied with the objections,
explanation regarding maintainability was submitted, and
the matter was heard on Bench at the request of the petitioner.
Despite the above, the impugned endorsement dated 18.12.2025 did not disclose:
why the explanation offered by the petitioner was unacceptable, or
whether any reasons were recorded in a separate order.
The Court emphasised that assignment of reasons is an essential attribute of a judicial order, particularly when the Court exercises discretion to return a plaint after hearing the party.
The absence of reasons rendered the endorsement bereft of reasoning and legally unsustainable, warranting interference in revision.
Consequently, the endorsement was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to pass a reasoned order within a stipulated time.
IV. RATIO DECIDENDI
A plaint, once represented with an explanation and heard by the Court, cannot be returned by a cryptic endorsement without assigning reasons; such return is unsustainable in law.
When no separate speaking order exists, and the endorsement on the plaint does not disclose reasons, the return of the plaint is vitiated for arbitrariness.
Failure to assign reasons while returning a plaint constitutes procedural illegality justifying interference under the revisional jurisdiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment