The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the registration of claim petitions under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC is a ministerial act, and courts cannot deny entry to litigants by raising successive, non-statutory objections at the numbering stage. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural formalities must not obstruct substantive rights in execution proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Kumari Kundrapu Priyanka and another, are daughters of the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 302 of 2017, filed by the respondents (decree holders) for recovery of a monetary amount. The decree was executed through E.P. No. 57 of 2019, during which the Court ordered attachment of ancestral property described in the execution schedule. The petitioners, claiming joint ownership as coparceners in the undivided ancestral property, filed a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC to challenge the attachment, asserting that they hold a beneficial interest in the property alongside their father, the second judgment debtor.
Key Facts
- The properties attached are ancestral holdings, originally inherited by the judgment debtor’s family.
- The decree holders themselves submitted ROR-1B records to establish the judgment debtor’s connection to the property, which also corroborates the petitioners’ derivative rights as daughters and coparceners.
- The petitioners filed their claim petition in G.R. No. 360 of 2026 in the execution case.
- The petitioners attached copies of their Aadhaar cards and revenue records at the time of filing.
- The claim petition was returned three times at the registration stage by the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, on different grounds each time.
- The scheduled auction date for the attached property is 22.04.2026.
Procedural History
- 20.01.2026: First return of claim petition with two objections: (1) lack of title/right over property; (2) failure to submit documents proving title.
- 23.01.2026: Petitioners resubmitted with detailed explanation, citing ROR-1B as sufficient proof of joint ownership and asserting that separate title deeds are not required for undivided ancestral property.
- 29.01.2026: Second return, citing absence of cause of action date with reference to attachment.
- 03.02.2026: Petitioners resubmitted, explaining that the attachment date is a matter of court record and citing Selvaraj v. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant to oppose mini-trials at registration.
- 13.02.2026: Third return, raising four new objections: (1) maintainability; (2) need for authenticated documents; (3) proof of relationship with respondents 3 and 4; (4) failure to file a partition suit against father.
- 30.04.2026: Civil Revision Petition No. 798 of 2026 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that the objections raised were not permissible under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, which permits rejection of claim petitions only if (a) the property is already sold, or (b) the claim is unnecessarily delayed. They contended that registration is a ministerial act and the Court cannot demand proof of title or maintainability at this stage.
Respondents: Did not appear or file any written submissions. The Court dispensed with notice to them, noting that no hearing rights accrue to respondents until after registration.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought: (1) setting aside the three orders of return; (2) direction to the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, to register the claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC; and (3) expeditious adjudication of the claim before the scheduled auction on 22.04.2026.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may refuse to register a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC at the ministerial stage by raising successive, non-statutory objections that require adjudication of title, maintainability, or documentary proof - issues that are expressly reserved for judicial determination after registration.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao v. Ethalapaka Vanaja (2025 SCC OnLine AP 50), where this Court held that registration is a ministerial function and courts must not conduct mini-trials at the entry stage. Objections requiring proof of title, cause of action, or relationship must be addressed after registration, not as preconditions to filing. Counsel emphasized that the petitioners had already submitted ROR-1B and Aadhaar cards, which are sufficient for registration. The piecemeal raising of objections, coupled with the imminent auction, threatened irreparable loss of property rights.
For the Respondent
No submissions were filed by the respondents or the judgment debtors. The Court proceeded ex parte, noting that respondents have no right to be heard at the registration stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that Order XXI Rule 58 CPC is a statutory mechanism designed to protect third-party interests in execution proceedings. The proviso to sub-rule (1) permits rejection of a claim petition only in two circumstances: (a) if the property has already been sold, or (b) if the claim is designedly or unnecessarily delayed. Neither condition applied here.
"Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice and not an obstruction. To restrict the litigant seeking for justice at the entry point... results in keeping such person away from the Court, which certainly results in delaying dispensation of justice."
The Court observed that the objections raised - lack of title, absence of cause of action date, need for authenticated documents, and failure to file a partition suit - are all substantive issues that require evidence, cross-examination, and judicial determination. These cannot be grounds for refusal at the registration stage. The Court reiterated its holding in Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao: objections not contemplated by the CPC or Civil Rules of Practice must not be used to deny access to justice.
The Court further noted that the ROR-1B record, submitted by the decree holders themselves, implicitly acknowledged the existence of a joint family estate. Requiring separate title deeds for ancestral property is contrary to revenue practice and legal reality. The Court rejected the notion that a partition suit must precede a claim petition under Rule 58, as the very purpose of the provision is to adjudicate such claims within the execution proceeding.
The Court condemned the practice of raising new objections upon each resubmission, calling it a form of procedural harassment that undermines the spirit of the CPC. It emphasized that if the registry has doubts, the petition must be registered and placed before the court for judicial consideration - not returned repeatedly.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Court directs the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, to register the claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in G.R. No. 360 of 2026 without delay. The Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is directed to ensure immediate registration and placement of the petition before the concerned court for adjudication. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, shall return the original claim petition to the petitioners’ counsel and retain a complete set on record. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to all Principal District Judges in the State to ensure compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Registration Is Ministerial, Not Judicial
- Practitioners may now insist that courts register claim petitions under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC even if title, maintainability, or documentary proof is in dispute - these are adjudicative issues to be decided after registration.
- Any objection requiring evidence or legal determination must be raised post-registration, not as a precondition to filing.
Piecemeal Objections Are Procedural Abuse
- Courts and registries cannot return claim petitions multiple times with new objections each time. This constitutes denial of access to justice.
- If a registry has a procedural concern, it must register the petition and place it before the court for direction.
Ancestral Property Claims Are Protected at Entry Stage
- Revenue records (ROR-1B) and family relationship documents (Aadhaar, birth certificates) are sufficient for registration of claim petitions in ancestral property cases.
- No separate partition suit is required before filing a claim under Rule 58 CPC.
Compliance Deadline
- The judgment mandates immediate registration. Any delay beyond 7 days from the date of judgment may be treated as contempt of court.
