THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1603 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner presented a plaint in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet claiming damages against the respondent. The petitioner functioned as a Counsel for the respondent in insolvency proceedings. The respondent filed a complaint before the Bar Council of A.P. alleging acts of professional misconduct against the petitioner. The plaint was rejected. The petitioner claimed damages against the respondent. The trial Court raised certain objections as to the form of the suit. On 04.11.2008, it was mentioned that the plaint was returned with an endorsement that the claims appear to be on the basis of contract and no such contract existed. The petitioner re-presented the suit, but once again, it was returned with the same objections. The order, dated 24.02.2009, which is the latest one returning the plaint, is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner wanted to claim damages against the respondent. However, in the body of the plaint, he gave the split up of amounts, such as fares to Hyderabad and expenditure at that place, loss in practice for the dates spent at Hyderabad, mental agony, damages to good reputation and loss of Advocate fee in the I.P. By their very nature, at least majority of them can be claimed only on the basis of a pre-existing agreement. The trial Court pointed out the same and even as of now, the objection is not complied with. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to re-present the plaint, duly complying with the objections. Office is directed to return the original plaint and the docket orders to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.07.2010 kdl