ORDER The Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 62 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. The said suit is for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property bearing door No. 11-2-47 (new door No. 7-3-30) admeasuring 2.051 square feet width house inclusive of joint wall on the East between plaintiff and defendants situated in Ward No. 11 in T.S.No. 383 within the municipal limits of Narasaraopet Town in Guntur District. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 30-11-1999. The Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, by Judgment dated 1-8-2005 in A.5.N 0.11 of 2000 filed by the defendants, while allowing the appeal dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the Second Appeal. 3. Second Appeal was filed on 7-11-2005. It is coming up for Admission from March 2006. It was initially listed before His Lordship Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Chelameswar, who directed the matter to be listed before another learned Judge. Again, it was listed before His Lordship Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, who also directed the another to be listed before another Judge. Thus the matter came up before this Court. This matter was listed before this Court on 10-7-2006 and 14-7-2006 for Admission and for orders on C.M.P.No. 607 of 2006 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for ad interim injunction against the defendants/respondents. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, the case was adjourned. 4. At that stage, the first respondent filed an affidavit in High Court Registry being USR No. 916 of 2006. In this affidavit, in paragraph 5, the first respondent prayed this Court to decide preliminary issue before proceeding further under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC. The first respondent, however, did not file any application i.e., Second Appeal Miscellaneous Petition (SAMP). The Registry returned the affidavit on 22-8-2006 vide Return No. 115 raising following objections. 1. It is to be clarified as to how this affidavit is maintainable without filing a proper petition with required Court fee stamp, Cause Title, prayer and provision of Law. 2. Duly filled docket is to be filed. 3. Service is to be effected on the otherside counsel. 4. 1. It is to be clarified as to how this affidavit is maintainable without filing a proper petition with required Court fee stamp, Cause Title, prayer and provision of Law. 2. Duly filled docket is to be filed. 3. Service is to be effected on the otherside counsel. 4. Grounds copy of Second Appeal is to be filed for verification of cause title. 5. Prayer is to be mentioned (incorporated) in the affidavit. 5. After receiving the returned affidavit, the first respondent resubmitted the same on 28-8-2006 endorsing as under. 1. No Rule quoted for the objection raised at Serial No1. 2. No Rule quoted for the objection under Serial No.2. 3. Signature is already obtained after service on 7-8-2006 from the other side counsel. 4. No Rule quoted for the objection at Serial No.4 grounds copy of second appeal is filed by the other side counsel and by this Respondent. 5. Prayer is specific in the affidavit itself which is not read. 6. The petition is in the form of affidavit because this is filed by the party-in-person. 7. Original Number given is CMP No. 916 dated 4-8-2006 later it is wrongly changed by the section as USR No. 916 to cover up the delay without posting before the Bench. 8. The delay caused for more than 3 weeks without action on the petition by retaining in the scrutiny section; it is returned with unwarranted objections on 22-8-2006, that too entering in a Register meant for Vakalaths return. 9. While returning where was the need to mention under S.A.No. 260 of 2006 it is not known which was objected and the same is scored off in the said register. 10. It is not known that when objections were there where was the need for retaining in the section for more than 3 weeks without returning the bundle with specific objections quoting the Rules thereon. The above replies are suitably given. Hence this may be numbered and posted before the Bench. 6. That is how this has been set-down "For Orders of the Court". The party-in-person primarily submits that when la person filed their cases without engaging lawyers and desire to represent the case before the Court, they cannot be expected to know the procedure and quote the rules and regulations under which such persons are seeking redressal. 6. That is how this has been set-down "For Orders of the Court". The party-in-person primarily submits that when la person filed their cases without engaging lawyers and desire to represent the case before the Court, they cannot be expected to know the procedure and quote the rules and regulations under which such persons are seeking redressal. He also submits that the case does not involve any substantial question of law requiring the entertainment of appeal under Section 100 of CPC. He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal (1) 2006 (4) ALD 28 (SC) and 5ugani v. Rameshwar Das and another (2) 2006 (5) ALT 10 (SC) = 2006 (5) SCJ 59 =2006 (4) ALD 41 (SC). 7. The point for consideration is whether the office objections are sustainable? Objection No.3 requires the service on the other side counsel. The party-in-person states that he obtained signature of the counsel for the appellant on 7-8-2006. Therefore, there is no necessity to examine objection No.3. Insofar as objection No.4 is concerned, as a practice, the Registry is insisting upon the copy of grounds of second appeal or Xerox copies of interim orders passed in earlier applications so as to expedite the scrutiny of the applications filed in the Registry. If this method is not followed, the Scrutiny. Officer has to send for the record either from concerned section to scrutinize the cause title in the application filed and then process as per Rules. There is no Rule to that effect though. Therefore, objection No.4 cannot be sustained. Insofar as the objection Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are concerned, the Registry has validly raised objection Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are concerned, the Registry has validly raised objections and this Court does not find fault with them. 8. High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, is a constitutional Court under Article 214 of Constitution of India. It is a Court of record having powers to punish for contempt of itself. Notwithstanding such exalted statics (sic. status), unless specific jurisdiction is conferred on it by enactment of the Parliament in exercise of powers under Articles 246(1) and (2) read with Entries 79 and 93 of List-I and Entry 11-A of List III of VII Schedule of Constitution of India (Col), the High Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction in relation to any matter. status), unless specific jurisdiction is conferred on it by enactment of the Parliament in exercise of powers under Articles 246(1) and (2) read with Entries 79 and 93 of List-I and Entry 11-A of List III of VII Schedule of Constitution of India (Col), the High Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction in relation to any matter. Similarly unless and until the State Legislature enacts the Law under Article 246(2) and (3) read with Entry 65 of List II and Entry 11-A of List III of VII Schedule of CoI, the High Court cannot entertain any cause. Be it also noted that under Article 225 of CoI, the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court shall be the same, as they existed immediately before commencement of CoI. Even when the power and jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court to entertain any dispute for adjudication, being a Court of record, it has inherent powers to regulate its own procedure. This principle is recognized by the Col in Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227 of Col as well as Section 122 of CPC. 9. In exercise of its powers under Article 227(2) of CoI and Section 126 of CPC, the High Court has promulgated the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice (hereafter called, Civil Rules). These Civil Rules shall regulate the practice and proceedings of all the Courts subordinate to the High Court. Chapter V of Civil Rules deals with Interlocutory Proceedings. Rule 53 read with Rule 60 of Civil Rules makes it very clear that an interlocutory application shall be headed with the cause title of the plaint, original petition or appeal, and facts based on which interlocutory relief is sought, shall be proved by way of an affidavit. Therefore, every application has to be made in the form of a petition accompanied by affidavit and mere filling of affidavit is not sufficient compliance with the Statutory Rules. 10. All causes and matters coming before he High Court on the appellate side shall be regulated under the Rules of High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, in its Appellate Jurisdiction (hereafter called, Appellate Side Rules) made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers under Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 1865, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the Acts amending the same, the Constitution of India and the Andhra State Act. These Appellate Side Rules govern and regulate the practice and proceedings on the appellate side. All the first appeals and interlocutory applications filed in relation thereto, all the second appeals and interlocutory matters thereto and civil revision petitions are governed by Appellate Side Rules. Rules 52 to 54 of Appellate Side Rules deal with petitions and read as under: 52. A petition shall, when presented by a pleader or attorney, bear his signature as pleader or attorney, and when presented by a party shall be signed or marked by him, and such signature or mark shall be acknowledged before the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Assistant Registrar, the Sub-Assistant Registrars or the Managers, Appellate Side, or before the Presiding Officer of any court or any Magistrate including a Village Magistrate, or a Sub-Registrar, Nazir, Deputy Nazir, Assistant Nazir or a member of a District Board or a Panchayat constituted respectively under the Madras District Boards Act, 1920 and the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 or a gazetted officer, or a notary as defined in the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act LIII of 1952), or an Advocate of the High Court, or a member of the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha or the Legislative Assembly of the State, who shall certify therein in the following form or to the like effect:- The contents of this petition were explained by me and the signature or mark (signatures or marks) made (or acknowledged) before me on the day of..... ...19.............. 52-A. Every petition or other matter filed in the High Court before the disposal of the main proceedings in the Lower Court shall mention the name and address of the pleader (if any) who represents the other party in the main proceedings in order that service may be effected in the manner provided in Rule 62-A. 53. Petitions to the High Court shall not be filed unless presented by a pleader of the Court, or his registered gumastah, or a party. 54. Petitions which are couched in improper language, or which are illegible, or unnecessarily prolix, shall be returned for amendment. 11. Rules 44, 45 and 47 of Appellants Side Rules deal with interlocutory applications and read as under. 44. 54. Petitions which are couched in improper language, or which are illegible, or unnecessarily prolix, shall be returned for amendment. 11. Rules 44, 45 and 47 of Appellants Side Rules deal with interlocutory applications and read as under. 44. (1) An application with respect to any of the matters mentioned in these rules shall be made by a petition to the Court stating the provision of law under which relief is sought, and the order prayed and any evidence thereon shall be given by affidavit. (2) The petition shall be presented to the Registrar or such officer as he shall appoint. 45. (1) If notice of the application is to be given, the applicant shall file in Court a notice to each party in Form No.3 of Appendix IV and a copy thereof. The date of hearing shall be inserted in the notice and a copy thereof. The date of hearing shall be inserted in the notice and copy which shall be sealed with the Court seal. The applicant shall serve the copy upon the other party to the appeal in manner prescribed by Rule 6 of Order XLI-A and shall take the signature of the party or his pleader upon the notice in acknowledgment of service, and where service is on the party shall file affidavit in proof of service, provided that in any case within Rule 4(2) of Order XLI-A, service shall be made under Rule 7 and the prescribed fee shall be filed with the petition. (2) Unless the Court otherwise orders notice need not be given to a party who has not entered an appearance. 47.(1) Any affidavit intended to be read in support of the petition shall be filed therewith and notice thereof shall be given to the other parties. If any party served with notice intends to use an affidavit upon the application he shall, not less than three days before the hearing, file the same in Court and give notice thereof to the applicant. (2) An affidavit in respect of which default has been made shall not be read in evidence, except by leave of the Court. 12. If any party served with notice intends to use an affidavit upon the application he shall, not less than three days before the hearing, file the same in Court and give notice thereof to the applicant. (2) An affidavit in respect of which default has been made shall not be read in evidence, except by leave of the Court. 12. A plain reading of the above Rules would show that filing of an affidavit either by the pleader or attorney or party-in-person without there being a petition with proper cause title and proper prayer by them in the affidavit, it is not proper filing of interlocutory application like CM.P., or petition. Such requests by the parties to accept the affidavit as petitions cannot be countenanced. The first respondent while resubmitting the returned affidavit endorsed that no Rule is quoted for objections raised in Serial Nos. 1 and 2. Be it noted, it is not for this Court or the Registry to advise persons approaching this Court for redressal, about the provisions of Law under which they can ventilate grievances.The Parliament has formed statutory body like legal Services Authority entrusting the duty of spreading legal literacy. There is no obligation on the part of the Registry to go on informing every person approaching this Court about the procedure of filing appeals. 13. In the result, the office objections 1, 2 and 5 are sustained. The Registry is directed to return the papers to the party-in-person.