Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati The Proddatur Arya Vysya Sabha vs A Naga Rajesh on 14 November, 2025

 

1. Mandatory Requirements of Verification of Pleadings and Supporting Affidavits (Section 139 and Order VI Rule 15 CPC)

• Core Issue: What is the legal purpose of verifying pleadings and furnishing a supporting affidavit, and whether casual or non-sworn affidavits satisfy the requirements of Section 139 and Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC?

• Holding: The purpose of verification is to fix responsibility for averments and allegations made in pleadings, clearly demarcating personal knowledge from information received and believed to be true. Filing a supporting affidavit is not an empty formality and cannot be done in a casual or negligent manner; affidavits that are not sworn before authorized officers in accordance with Section 139 and Order VI Rule 15 CPC are invalid.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12.

• Ratio:

  "The filing of the affidavit is again not a formality and a party has to be extremely careful of what it is stating on oath. The same cannot be filed in a casual and negligent manner." (Paragraph 11)

2. Violation of Caveat Principles and Ex Parte Orders (Section 148A CPC)

• Core Issue: What is the legal implication under Section 148A of the CPC when an ex parte interim order or injunction is granted by a court despite the filing of a valid caveat?

• Holding: A caveat is founded on the principle of Audi Alteram Partem requiring both sides to be heard. Granting interim relief without notice when a valid caveat is on record is a violation of principles of natural justice and warrants setting aside the impugned ex parte order.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 13 and 14.

• Ratio:

  "Apparently, despite the petitioners herein/R3, R1 and R4 filed Caveat... which is valid till 16.09.2025, the trial Court vide Order, dated 09.09.2025 directed both parties to maintain status quo... which is violation of principles of natural justice." (Paragraph 14)

Supreme Court of India Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006

 

• Whether the Original Side Rules of a Chartered High Court framed under the Letters Patent prevail over the provisions of the CPC, and whether subsequent CPC amendments automatically apply to the Original Side.

• Holding: Rules of the Original Side framed under the Letters Patent govern proceedings in the exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. However, references to provisions like Orders VI and VII of the CPC in the Original Side Rules (such as Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Calcutta High Court Rules) are general references that incorporate amendments to those orders, and procedural requirements must be harmoniously read.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, and 16.

• Ratio:

  "It was clearly the intention of the High Court when it framed the Original Side Rules that the plaint should be in conformity of the provisions of Order VI and Order VII of the Code. By necessary implication reference will also have to be made to Section 26 and Order IV of the Code which, along with Order VI and Order VII, concerns the institution of suits." (Paragraph 16)

2. Nature of Procedural Requirements Introduced by the CPC Amendments (Filing of Affidavit and Verification)

• Core Issue: Are the amended statutory requirements under Section 26(2), Order IV Rule 1(3), and Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC (mandating supporting affidavits for plaints) mandatory such that non-compliance renders a plaint non-est?

• Holding: No. These amendments are procedural in nature and directory. Non-compliance at the initial stage does not automatically render the plaint invalid or non-est; the defect is curable and relates back to the original date of presentation.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 12, 13, 16, and 17.

• Ratio:

  "...procedural enactments ought not to be construed in a manner which would prevent the Court from meeting the ends of justice in different situations. The intention of the legislature in bringing about the various amendments in the Code... were aimed at eliminating the procedural delays... but being procedural in nature, they are directory in nature and non-compliance thereof would not automatically render the plaint non-est..." (Paragraph 16)

M/S Patil Automation Private Limited vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited on 17 August, 2022

 

1. Mandatory Nature of Pre-Litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

• Core Issue: Whether the statutory pre-litigation mediation contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (as amended in 2018) is mandatory or directory for commercial suits that do not contemplate urgent interim relief.

• Holding: Mandatory. Section 12A is imperative in nature. A plaintiff who does not contemplate urgent interim relief must exhaust pre-litigation mediation before instituting a commercial suit. Non-compliance must result in the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 43, 53, 63, 66, and 84.

• Ratio:

  "Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the object of the Act and the Rules... The right of suit itself will fructify only when the conditions in Section 12A are fulfilled." (Paragraph 43)

2. Suo Motu Power of Courts to Reject Plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

• Core Issue: Must the power to reject a plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A be exercised only upon an application by the defendant, or can the court act suo motu?

• Holding: The court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 suo motu at the initial stage before issuing summons if it finds the suit is barred by law (including non-compliance with Section 12A).

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 67 and 68.

• Ratio:

  "Order VII Rule 11 does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint only on an application... the power under Order VII Rule 11 is available to the court to be exercised suo motu." (Paragraph 68)

3. Inadmissibility of Post-Institution Mediation as Substantial Compliance

• Core Issue: Can a court cure a violation of Section 12A by keeping the suit in abeyance post-institution and referring the parties to mediation?

• Holding: No. In a suit where no urgent interim relief is contemplated, there can be no "substantial compliance" through post-institution reference to mediation. The suit must be barred and visited with the rejection of the plaint.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 48 and 63.

• Ratio:

  "In regard to a suit covered under Section 12A of the Act, namely, in a suit where interim relief is not contemplated, there can be no substantial compliance by way of post institution reference to mediation." (Paragraph 63)

4. Prospective Operation of the Judgment

• Core Issue: Given the conflicting views among High Courts and the teething problems of a newly amended law, should the declaration that Section 12A is mandatory be applied retrospectively or prospectively?

• Holding: The declaration of law making Section 12A mandatory is made effective prospectively from August 20, 2022, to protect past transactions, avoid unnecessary reopening of closed matters, and allow stakeholders to become informed.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 83 and 84.

• Ratio:

  "We declare that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11... We, however, make this declaration effective from 20.08.2022 so that concerned stakeholders become sufficiently informed." (Paragraph 84)

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati K. Mohammed Arif vs K. Mohammed Fairoz on 5 June, 2025

 

1. Mandatory Procedure for Non-Numbering and Multiple Returns of a Plaint

• Core Issue: What is the mandatory procedure to be followed by the registry and the trial court when a plaint is returned multiple times for uncured objections?
  
  
• Holding: Under Rule 22 (New) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and established judicial guidelines, when a plaint is returned more than three times and objections remain uncured to the satisfaction of the registry, the court must mandatorily list the matter in the open court for a judicial hearing rather than continuing ministerial returns.
  
  
• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12.
  
  
• Ratio:
  
  

  "Since the trial Court has already returned the Plaint more than three times, exercising its power under Rule-22 (new) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, the trial Court ought to have listed the matter for hearing in the open Court and decide accordingly as per law." (Paragraph 12)

  
  

2. Judicial Function vs. Ministerial Function in Determining Suit Maintainability at Filing Stage

• Core Issue: Can the registry or filing section decide the maintainability of a suit or insist that explanations be given directly to the registry before registration?
  
  
• Holding: No. Deciding the maintainability of a suit is a judicial function exclusively vested in the Presiding Judge, not a ministerial function for the filing section. If an objection regarding maintainability is raised, the matter must be placed before the court for a judicial decision.
  
  
• Key Paragraphs: Paragraph 8, 9, and 10.
  
  
• Ratio:
  
  

  "Deciding the maintainability of the suit is a judicial function and not a ministerial function. Consequently, even if there be a valid objection to the maintainability of a suit, the plaint is not to be refused registration nor is to be returned by the Registry but is to be placed before the court, pointing out such objection." (Paragraph 10, quoting Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao v. Ethalapaka Vanaja)