Claimants Cannot Be Asked To Establish Title At Stage Of Registration Of Claim Petition Under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The High Court observed that objections requiring adjudication on merits cannot be raised at the stage of registration and that issues relating to right, title and interest in the property must be examined only after the claim petition is registered and placed before the Court on the judicial side.

The Court was hearing a civil revision petition filed against the repeated return of an unnumbered claim petition presented in execution proceedings pending before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

The petitioners alleged that despite repeatedly complying with office objections, the executing court continued to return the claim petition with fresh objections at every stage of re-presentation.

A Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed: “… on seeing the objection that at the time of registering/numbering of the claim petition, those objections could not be raised at all. 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. It is after the registration on the judicial side that the necessary exercise should be done”.

Advocate Goli GVS Sai appeared for the petitioner.

The petitioners, claiming to be co-sharers in certain ancestral properties, filed a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in execution proceedings arising out of a money decree. The decree holders had obtained attachment orders against certain properties during the execution of the decree.

According to the petitioners, the attached properties were ancestral and jointly owned by them along with other family members. They asserted that the judgment debtor did not possess exclusive ownership over the entire property and, therefore, the attachment adversely affected their rights and interests.

When the claim petition was initially presented for numbering, the executing court returned it with objections asking how the claim petitioners were entitled to file the petition without any right or title over the attached property and directing them to produce documents establishing such title and right.

The petitioners re-presented the claim petition, explaining that the properties were ancestral in nature and relied upon revenue records to assert joint ownership and constructive possession.

Thereafter, the claim petition was once again returned on the ground that the cause of action date with reference to the attachment had not been mentioned.

The petitioners again re-presented the claim petition, stating that the attachment order was already part of the court record and further contended that repeated piecemeal objections were seriously prejudicing their rights, particularly when auction proceedings were continuing simultaneously.

However, the executing court again returned the claim petition with fresh objections relating to maintainability, filing of authenticated title documents, proof of relationship with the judgment debtors and explanation regarding absence of a partition suit.

The High Court extensively referred to its earlier decision in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao v. Ethalapaka Vanaja (2025) concerning impermissible objections raised by court registries at the stage of numbering plaints and petitions. The Court reiterated that procedural rules are intended to advance justice and that litigants cannot be denied access to courts by raising objections not contemplated under the CPC or Civil Rules of Practice.

Referring to Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, the Bench observed that the provision confers a valuable right upon third parties claiming interest in attached properties and that all questions relating to right, title or interest are required to be adjudicated by the executing court itself. The Court noted that under the proviso to Rule 58(1), refusal to entertain a claim petition is permissible only where the attached property has already been sold or where the court considers the claim to have been unnecessarily delayed.

The Bench found that the objections raised by the executing court at the registration stage effectively amounted to recording prima facie findings regarding ownership and maintainability even before registration of the claim petition. The Court held that production of title documents and adjudication regarding ownership cannot be insisted upon at the numbering stage and must instead be examined only after registration of the proceedings.

The Bench further observed that even if objections are raised at the administrative stage, and the registry remains unsatisfied with the explanations offered by litigants, the matter should thereafter be placed before the court on the judicial side rather than repeatedly returning the petition. The Court expressed concern that repeated returns of claim petitions in execution proceedings could deprive third parties of an effective opportunity to protect their rights over attached properties, especially where auction proceedings are imminent.

The Bench remarked: “A mini-trial cannot be conducted at the stage of registration of the claim petition or a suit. As per the second objection, the documents were sought to show the title and right with regard to the E.P schedule property. This is not the stage to ask for the documents to establish the title, which is to be seen on the judicial side after registration and numbering of the claim petition. The merits of the claim petition or the merit of the plaint to establish the case by filing the documents in support of the plaint averments or the claim petition to make out a case is not at the stage of numbering of the suit.”

The Court remarked that the repeated return of the petition without regard to earlier High Court directions was “highly objectionable” and contrary to judicial discipline and propriety.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the civil revision petition and directed the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge to register the claim petition filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.

The Court further directed the Principal District Judge to ensure registration of the claim petition and expeditious placement of the matter before the competent court for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The Registrar Judicial of the High Court was also directed to return the original claim petition filed before the High Court, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Principal District Judge for sensitisation of the district registry in terms of the earlier directions issued in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao (2025).