Andhra Pradesh High Court orders Anakapalli court to number claim petition returned thrice at registration stage

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held that a trial court cannot conduct a 'mini-trial' on title at the numbering stage of an Order 21 Rule 58 CPC claim petition, and pulled up the Anakapalli court for ignoring binding directions in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed an Anakapalli court to register a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure that was returned three times at the numbering stage on objections going to title and entitlement. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held that the registry cannot conduct a “mini-trial” on the merits before a petition is even numbered, and that the trial court had acted contrary to binding directions issued earlier this year in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao v. Ethalapaka Vanaja.

The petition came up under Article 227 of the Constitution as Civil Revision Petition No. 798 of 2026. The two petitioners are daughters of the second judgment debtor in O.S. No. 302 of 2017, a money suit decreed by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The decree holders had moved E.P. No. 57 of 2019 before the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, and secured an attachment over the schedule property. The petitioners claimed that the attached property is undivided ancestral property in which they hold coparcenary rights, that their father at most held a one-third share, and that the attachment trenched on their interest.

What followed at the trial court is the heart of the matter. The claim petition was filed in G.R. No. 360 of 2026 and was returned at the registration stage on 20 January 2026, then again on 29 January, and a third time on 13 February with four further objections. With sale proclamation in the execution petition fixed for 22 April 2026, the petitioners moved the High Court.

What Order 21 Rule 58 actually permits

The Court began with the text of the rule. Order 21 Rule 58 allows any person — including a stranger to the decree — to seek adjudication of their right, title or interest in property attached in execution. The proviso to sub-rule (1) sets out the only two situations in which such a claim shall not be entertained: where the attached property has already been sold, and where the court considers the claim designedly or unnecessarily delayed. Neither applied to the petitioners’ case.

Justice Tilhari then turned to the objections themselves. The first round, dated 20 January 2026, asked how the petitioners were entitled to file the petition without right or title over the EP schedule property, and demanded documents to establish title. The Court called this a recording of a prima facie finding on entitlement — something the registry has no power to do at the numbering stage. The second round, dated 29 January, took issue with the cause-of-action date not being stated. But the date of attachment was a matter of court record in the very same execution petition; that objection too could not justify a return.

The third round on 13 February was the longest, asking among other things how the petition could be maintained without first filing a partition suit against the father. The Court held that none of these were objections of the kind contemplated by the proviso to Rule 58, and that even if some had a basis in the CPC or the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, the proper course on a contested re-presentation was to place the matter before the judicial side — not to keep returning the petition.

The Gorripati framework, ignored on the ground

Most of the judgment is devoted to the Anakapalli court’s departure from Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao, decided by the same High Court on 10 January 2025. That earlier ruling had already laid out the permissible scope of registry objections in the State and had directed every Principal District Judge in Andhra Pradesh to sensitise their registries.

Paragraph 50 of Gorripati, extracted in this judgment, sets the tone: rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice, and a litigant cannot be turned away at the entry point on objections that are not contemplated by the CPC or the State’s Civil Rules of Practice. Where the registry is not satisfied, the matter is to be placed before the court for orders, not bounced back with fresh objections each time.

“Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice and not an obstruction.”

The judgment also drew on the Madras High Court’s ruling at the Madurai Bench in Selvaraj v. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, India, which had similarly deprecated the practice of conducting mini-trials at the numbering stage and set aside several such return orders.

Why piecemeal returns prejudice claim petitioners

The Court was alive to the practical consequence of repeated returns when execution proceedings are running in parallel. The schedule property in this case was already under attachment, with sale proclamation set for 22 April 2026. Each successive return forced the petitioners to file an explanation, only to face a fresh objection on the next round. The petition had still not been numbered when sale proclamation drew near.

Justice Tilhari described this state of affairs as a serious matter. Order 21 Rule 58 exists precisely to give third parties an opportunity to assert their claim before the property is sold; if access to that opportunity is blocked at the numbering stage, the right is rendered illusory. The judgment treats the trial court’s repeated returns as a denial of meaningful access to court.

The Court also recorded its disquiet at the fact that the same district had already been the subject of corrective directions in Gorripati, and that those directions had not been followed. The Anakapalli court’s conduct was described as “highly objectionable” and against the canons of judicial discipline and propriety.

Order

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition. The X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli was directed to register the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam was directed to ensure registration and place the petition before the concerned court expeditiously. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court was directed to return the original claim petition filed with the CRP to the petitioners’ counsel after retaining a copy on record. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam to sensitise the registry of the district, in line with the directions issued in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.