The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. NADIPALLY ANANDA RAO, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHNI {N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3462 Ot' 2025 ORDER Heard Sri Nadipally Ananda Rao, learned c runscl lor the petitioner.

2. This revision is filed under Article22T of the ( onstitution ol lndia. challenging the orders dated 08.07.2025 and,28 0'| .2025 passed in O.S.(SR) No.40 I9 of 2025 by the learned principal l.,i:;trict Judgc ar Flanunrakonda. 3 . The petitioner herein/p laintilf is the wife ol he rcsponclcnr hereirudefendant. I'heir marriage was perlormed ,.r I 02.09.2023. .fhereatter, disputes arose between them. Responden has flled an application vide FCOP No.404 ol 2024 under Section l3(l)(ia) oi'thc llindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of nrr r"iage on the ground ol cruelt1,. .1. According to the petitioner, respondent has nradc ser.ious allegations ol'itticit relationship etc., in the said petitio.. She has also liled co,nter in the said FCoP. Respondent harassed ht,r and theretirre she has filed a suit vide OS(SR) No.40l9 of 20i:, against the lcspondent seeking damages of Rs.1,00,00,000i-. I --- \ 't "- ,.I.Gtt 2 kl,.J CRP No 3{52 ot2015

5. The office of the principal District Judge, Hanumakonda, raised the following objections:- "l have gone through the entire pleadings. The most or to say correct. The only rclevant paragraphs in the ntaladroit suit in para No.24 and 25 of thc plaint and several irrelcvant pleadings arc madc. ln the opinion of the cou(, all the irrelevant plcadings can be strike ofT by the court and since the suit is yet to be registered, the court directs the plaintifl to strike olf all the irrclevant pleadings in excrcise of the discretion under Order VI Rule 16. C.p.C. Further, the plaintillneed to clarily whethcr the attcstation is donc by the person competent to attest the si_qnarure ol the plaintiff at [-ondon' tJ.K. The plainrill sha crariry as ro how soricirori advocatc practicing in London is competent to attcsr thc signature of the plaintiflf. As far as the olfice objections are conccrned, it is settled [aw,that the statements madc in the plcadings can be challenged as defamation in nature. Judgnrent of thc l{on'blo I Iigh Couit of- Madras in Thagavelu Chettiar Vs. Pcrumari n IR 1966 Mad 36j and Trichinopoly Ramaswamy Vs. Krisar Shankar Bhagat 199 I M.p.CJ. 597 Supre. The vicw. Furrher the judgment in Alti Raji Joseph Vs. P.Arun Kumar 2013 (l) CTC 661, it was held rhat it is not necessary to await outcome of the suit lor {iling the suit for delamation. Counsel lor the plaintiff relied upon two judgments regarding lirnitation period and these objections are ill-fbundcd. 1-he plaintifF horvever shall clarifz that [) The signature of the plaintilTis atrested by thc cornpcrcnt authority 2) The plaintiff shall redact the larv by striking olf thc irrelevanr pleadings. Return thc plaint lor cornply u'ith thc above ob-iections within (07) days. "

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also re-submitted the said plaint with the following explanarion:- Ll I C F I'\o l16l ofl0li ''-fhc contents referrcd to. in the plaint are releviu t and thev arc inter rclated / connected rvith each other. Virtuallr ,.hcrc arc no incle'anl paras in the plaint. Ifparas of the plaint, othcr r.ran para nos. 2'{ and 25 are strike o ff. the continuity ofpleadings i.e. r(,nterrrs orthc plaint * ill bc aflsctcd. thus the plaintillis not inclincd rr strikc orrthe paras of'the plaint other than para nos. 24 and 25 of.rlr,: .pl.int. The rnaterial paras rclcrrcd in the plaint do not la withir :hc arrbit or ordcr VI I{ule l6 of'CPC. With regard to other objectirrrrs S.R. ].ad'ai i.c. Srinivasa Reddl 'fadvai, solicitor was enrolled as.,\rlvocate with []ar Counscl ol AP vide Enrollment No. l95g/1995. hi: worked as Junior Advocate in thc o['tloe of latc Sri. Venkata Swarrrr Red<1,,, ftom 1995 ro 2000. Subscquently Srinivasa Reddy Tadvai ,ve it to U.k. and he passcd qualilicd larvyers translcr test in 2006, cvcr :ince he has hccn practicine in the courts a1 London and wares as _r soricit.r ti darc. [n lingland and walcs, solicitors who hord practic ng certificate are autornaticalh' commissioners lor oath and can witrrr:ss signatures on legal docunrcnts. They are authorized to administ(r oaths. takc al'lidavits. certitlcd copics ol documents. This authorrrr is derivcd liorl thcir rolc as a solicitor and thcir practicing ccrtillt:tc and ther cau perform thcsc lirnctions as long as they are not i,.t,lvetl in thc logal tnatter or have personal interest in the ca;c. ln U.K. c.rn,issi.ner firr oath is someone authorized to ad,ririster oaths- takc alfidavits and rvitness signing of legal documcnts. pructicing solicitors in Eneland and wares are automaticalry corn rr rr:;s io,ers ro-r oaths. tncaning thc) can pcrlorm these lunctions withoLrr neodin_q a scparatc appoinrlncnt. l his includcs witnessing si:.rratulcs on docuntcnrs likc slarut.ory dcclarations, taking alficlar its and S.R. Tad'ai i.c. certil\'ing copies ol documents. ihus Srinrrasa l{cdd, 'l'advai bcing solicitor practicing in courts at London and warcs has a(cstcd signat,rcs of thc praintiff on r5-04-2025 on thrr plaint ctc., bcing compctcnt and authorized to do so. Thus proper er rlanation fbr thc ob.iections raised b1' thc Ilon'brc court as mentioned rb(),,,.e. IIonce rc-subrnittcd."

7. Vidc dockcr order dated2g.07.2025, teamed rri rl Courr again retumed the said plaint observing as lollows:- "Ob.jcction takcn on 0g.07.2025 are not complicd r, rrh. I lencc, rcturned. " 4 Kl .l CRI' \o ll{ol of202i

8. As discussed supra, Ieamed trial Court raiscd the aloresaid objections and leamed counsel for the petitioner has resubmitted the bundle with the aforesaid explanation. Without considering the same, vide order dated 08.07.2025, leamed trial Court returned the bundle. Challenging the said order of returning the plaint, the petitioner filed the present revision.

9. Perusal of the plaint fited by the petitioner herein would re.veal that in paragraph No.III (1), she has nan'ated about the lelation between her and respondent, her educational particulars and her travel to US. In paragraph No.llI (2) she has narratcd about the residence of her parents etc, and also about the house ol G.Purushotham where they talked about alliance. In paragraph No.lll(3), she has also narrated about Sri N.Devender and his wile Neeraja accompanied parents of the respondent herein to the.house ol the parents of the petitioner, about the dowry demanded and agreed to offer by her parents. In paragraph No.lll (4) she has narrated about the performance of her marriage with respondent on 02.09.2023 at P.G.R. gardens as per the Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage

10. In paragraph No.5, the petitioner has asserted with regard to the respondent's transfer to Narsampet as Forest Range Officer, in the ) tt .l cR r \L lt6t ('r lr)l: month of' Aullust, 2023 etc. and in Paragraph \o.6, about the delendant's mother disliking her. She has also narat:rl the alorcsaid O.P. filed by the respondent. Therefore, leamed trir I Court cannot come to a conclusion thal except paragraph No.24 and 1:i of the plaint, othgr paragraphs are irrelevant. The said observation ol the learned trial Court and objection taken are factually incorrect Horvever, on he said grounds, learned trial Court cannot return the pla nt. I l. In the light ol- thc albresaid discussion, this (]ivil Revision Petitiorr is allorved. 'l-he impugned order dated 28.07:025 of the trial Court returning the plaint on the ground that the petitioner/plaintifldid not. cornply with the ob.lections raken on 08.07.201:;. is set aside. Learned Principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda is dir.ected to number rhe suit Yide O.S.(SR) No.4019 of 2025,:l'the same is otherwise in orcler, withor,rt raising objection that the paragraph No.24 and 25 of the plaint and other paragraphs are irrelevant. Learned trial Court shall dispose of the said suit on merits As a seqr-rel thereto, r-nisccllaneous petitions, il any, pending in this revision shall stand closcd r/ 1LUE to{/\ tt SD/. N CH At'JDRA SEKHAR RAO, ,IIEPUTY REGISTRAR. .i SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda.

2. One CC to Mr. NADIPALLY ANANDA RAO, Advocale [OPUC] $- ,. Two CD Copies .fi.4ffi _"<r**?}_+-- HIGH COURT DATED: 10110t2025 ORDER CRP.No.3462 ot 2025 Qo lJ_ t- ,.f Fo T l: .$ r\si \"t l-lO,9 + I :\ -{ .(i, '),.t .,/ This Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. 1 {. \r