*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + Writ Petition No.5179 of 2010 % 08-03-2010 # Mohd.Osman Ali ….Appellants Vs. $ 1.Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohd.Adam Counsel for Respondent No.1: --- Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr.Ponnam Ashok Goud (Asst.Solicitor General) <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.5179 of 2010 Between: Mohd.Osman Ali ..... Petitioner AND 1.Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohd.Adam Counsel for Respondent No.1: --- Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr.Ponnam Ashok Goud (Asst.Solicitor General) The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to set aside proceedings, dated 20th February, 2010, passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration that his correct date of birth is 11-06-1983 and a consequential direction to respondent No.2, who is the sole defendant therein, to correct his date of birth as 11- 06-1983 instead of 16-07-1967 in his passport bearing No.E6954196. The said suit was returned on 29-10- 2009, directing the petitioner to file all his original certificates for proving his correct date of birth. The plaintiff represented the plaint and again on 10th December, 2009, the plaint was returned with the same objections. In his affidavit, the petitioner submitted that the return of his plaint on the ground of insufficiency of material is improper and that the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has exceeded his jurisdiction by doing so. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find force therein. When a party files a suit, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and Civil Rules of Practice, it is no part of the duty of the Court to examine, at the stage of scrutiny and registration of the suit, whether the plaintiff has adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his prayer in the suit. If the plaintiff fails to file proper material to substantiate his pleas, he will be doing so at his peril. But the Court cannot, at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file the documents, which, in its opinion, are relevant for granting relief. Therefore, the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is directed to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff with the material that has been filed by him and adjudicate the same in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6670 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 8th March, 2010 Note: Lr copy to be marked. (B/o) lur