IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3647 OF 2011 Between: B.Ramachandram …Petitioner A n d The Chief Secretary to Government of India, New Delhi and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3647 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit against respondents/D-1 to D-17 claiming damages of Rs.1,08,00,000/-. The office of the trial Court raised objection regarding the maintainability of the suit against D-1 to D-7, who are Government Officials. 3. By order dated 19.10.2010, the trial Court rejected the plaint against D-1 to D-7 and also directed return of the plaint for making necessary consequential amendments following the rejection of the plaint and re- submit the plaint along with a neat copy of the plaint for the purpose of registering the suit against D-8 to D-17. The order has not been challenged by the petitioner and the same has attained finality. It is stated that subsequently the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by impleading D-4 to D-7 in their individual names vide C.F.SR.No.2277 of 2010. The said application is not yet numbered. By the impugned order, the trial Court gave a direction to the plaintiff to comply with the earlier directions contained in the order dated 19.10.2010 by taking return of the plaint. Inasmuch as the earlier order dated 19.10.2010 remained unchallenged and, therefore, became final, the petitioner/plaintiff is bound to comply with the directions contained therein. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC may be considered by the Court after the plaint is registered and filing of the said application does not come in the way of registering the suit. Inasmuch as the plaint is already rejected as against D-1 to D-7, there cannot be any impediment to register the plaint as against D-8 to D-17, if it is otherwise in order. The deletion of D-1 to D-7 from the cause title and re-numbering of the remaining defendants D-8 to D-17 is not required as it is borne out by the record that the plaint against D-1 to D-7 is already rejected. 5. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to register the plaint against D-8 to D-17, if it is otherwise in order and deal with the matter in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th September, 2011 Note:- CC by one week B/o Lrkm