Model docket in Return of Plaint - Return of Plaint by Agency Court, consequent to Hon'ble Apex Court's Judgment in Mukkera Venkata Ratnam &Ors. v. Vantasala China Venkateswarlu&Ors

 Docket Order :   -09-2026

Date of Presentation of the Plaint: (18-03-2023 )

 

Name of the Party Presenting the Plaint: G. Rajender, Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff.

 

Date of Order for Return of Plaint: (26-09-2026)

 1.     This matter is taken up to examine, as a preliminary issue, whether this Court retains subject-matter jurisdiction over the present suit, in light of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukkera Venkata Ratnam &Ors. v. Vantasala China Venkateswarlu&Ors., 2026 INSC 810 : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 772, decided on 06.08.2026.

2.     In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that Civil Courts constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate civil disputes of succession and partition concerning properties situated in Scheduled Areas, notwithstanding the notification dated 30.10.1972 (G.O. Ms. No. 1573) excluding the application of that Act to Scheduled Areas, provided the dispute is exclusively between non-tribal parties and involves no tribal interest. This is consistent with the general rule under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred.

3.     The Supreme Court reasoned that the object of continuing Agency Courts under the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 — framed under Section 6 of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 — read with the protections under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, is to safeguard Scheduled Tribes, their lands, and their customs from exploitation. Subjecting exclusively non-tribal parties to Agency Court procedure bears no rational nexus to that object and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

4.     The Supreme Court further clarified that the mere location of a property within a notified Scheduled Area does not, by itself, oust Civil Court jurisdiction where all parties before the Court are non-tribal, and that this position applies to pending suits as well as those instituted hereafter. It was equally clarified that where even one party to a dispute is a tribal residing in a Scheduled Area, the Agency Court alone continues to have jurisdiction.

5.     Upon perusal of the pleadings and the cause title, it is seen that the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) in the present suit are all non-tribal  and that the dispute, though concerning property situated in a Scheduled Area, involves no tribal party and no fetter on tribal interest.

7.     In view of the law declared in Mukkera Venkata Ratnam (supra), this Court, being an Agency Court, does not possess jurisdiction to try the present suit, such jurisdiction vesting instead in the ordinary Civil Court having pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter.In the circumstances, the plaint, together with all accompanying documents, is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff(s) for presentation before the competent Civil Court, under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").

8.     The defendant having entered appearance in the suit, the plaintiff is intimated, under Order VII Rule 10A(1) CPC, of this Court's decision to return the plaint. The plaintiff, present in Court, made an application under Order VII Rule 10A(2) CPC specifying the Court of the [Principal Junior Civil Judge / Principal Senior Civil Judge / Principal District Judge — as per pecuniary jurisdiction],  as the Court in which the plaint is proposed to be presented, and praying that a date be fixed for appearance of the parties before that Court.

9.     In compliance with Order VII Rule 10A(3) CPC, the plaintiff and the defendant are directed to appear before the said Court on ______ Notice of this date shall issue to both parties, and, under Order VII Rule 10A(4) CPC.

10.                        It is clarified that only the plaint, together with the documents filed by the plaintiff along with it, is returned by this order. The written statement and documents already filed by the defendant, and the record of this Court, will remain on the file of this Court  and this follows from the settled position in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in M/s. EXL Careers &Anr. v. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd., 2020 INSC 477that, on re-presentation, the suit is to be treated as a fresh plaint and the trial before the transferee Court is to proceed de novo. This is without prejudice to either party's right to apply for return or certified copies of this Court's record, or to rely afresh, before the transferee Court, on any document filed with the pleadings before this Court.The Office is directed close the suit on the pending register of this Court and mark it as "Returned for presentation before the proper Civil Court.

 

PRESIDING OFFICER/AGENT TO THE GOVERNMENT]