The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the registration of a claim petition is a ministerial act and trial courts cannot conduct “mini-trials” or demand proof of title at the numbering stage. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari set aside the repeated returns of an un-numbered claim petition by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, terming the lower court’s actions as contrary to judicial discipline.
The legal issue concerned whether a trial court registry can repeatedly return a claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by raising objections related to the merits of the claim, such as proof of title and cause of action, before the petition is even registered.
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, directing the trial court to register the claim petition and emphasizing that judicial questions must be decided on the judicial side after registration, not as administrative objections.
Background of the Case
The petitioners filed an un-numbered claim petition (G.R.No.360 of 2026) in E.P.No.57 of 2019 (arising from O.S.No.302 of 2017) before the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli. They sought to raise an attachment over properties they claimed were ancestral and jointly owned. They contended that while their father was the 4th respondent, he only held a 1/3rd share, and the attachment adversely affected their rights.
The Registry of the trial court returned the petition three times between January and February 2026. The objections included demands for documents proving title, explanations on how the petitioners were entitled to file without title, the specific date of the cause of action regarding the attachment, and why a partition suit had not been filed against their father.
Arguments of the Petitioners
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Goli GVS Sai, argued that the repeated returns suffered from a “gross non-application of mind.” He submitted that under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, there are only two conditions for not entertaining a claim: if the property is already sold or if the claim is designedly delayed.
The counsel further contended that the registration is a ministerial act and the court should not have asked for facts to be proved at that stage. He highlighted that raising piecemeal objections caused prejudice as the execution court was proceeding toward a sale proclamation fixed for April 22, 2026.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Tilhari observed that the trial court’s actions were in violation of the principles laid down in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao v. Ethalapaka Vanaja (2025 SCC OnLine AP 50).
On the Nature of Objections: The Court noted that asking for title documents at the numbering stage was improper. “At the time of registration the claimant cannot be asked to show the entitlement to file the claim petition nor to submit the documents to establish their title and right,” the Court stated. It further observed that by raising such objections, the Registry had effectively recorded a prima facie finding that the petitioners had no right, which is impermissible.
On ‘Mini-Trials’: Quoting the Madras High Court in Selvaraj vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, the Court reiterated:
“This Court finds that in all these cases, the concerned courts have conducted mini-trials at the stage of numbering the suit which is, ex facie, inconsistent with the parameters set out supra.”
On Procedural Propriety: The High Court emphasized that if a Registry remains unsatisfied with an explanation after re-presentation, it must place the matter before the Court on the judicial side rather than repeatedly returning it. Justice Tilhari remarked:
“To restrict the litigant seeking for justice at the entry point… by raising the objections not provided or contemplated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure… results in keeping such person away from the Court, which certainly results in delaying dispensation of justice.”
The Court expressed serious concern that the trial court disregarded the specific directions issued in the Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao case, calling it “against all the cannons of judicial discipline and judicial propriety.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and issued the following directions:
- The Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, must register the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC.
- The Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is directed to ensure the registration and place the matter before the concerned court expeditiously.
- The Principal District Judge is further directed to “sensitize the Registry of the District Court” to ensure compliance with the directions in the Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao judgment.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Kumari Kundrapu Priyanka and another v. Smt. Bandaru Varalakshmi and 3 others
- Case No.: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.798 of 2026
- Bench: JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
- Date: 30.04.2026
