ORDER: Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel representing the first respondent. Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the plaint was returned once and the objections had been complied with and again second time the plaint was returned and questioning the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred. The counsel also would maintain that in the light of the view expressed by this Court in AMIR ALI VS. MANECK H. GHANDIALI AND OTHERS, the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable. The counsel also strongly relied on a decision of this court in THANAMKI PRASAD VS. GUNTAMADUGU PULIAMMA AND OTHERS, and would maintain that in the light of the view expressed by the learned Judge in the said decision, suitable directions may be given to number the suit. The counsel also would further explain that the objections raised for the second time are un-sustainable objections. The counsel also would maintain that the decree obtained by the second respondent is an ex-parte decree and the learned Judge ought to have considered that the petitioner filed an application to set aside the same and the same is pending. The learned counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the relief of present suit is to cancel the document bearing No., 2343 of 2007 dated 19.6.2007 i.e., agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of the first respondent and failed to see that the document was executed subsequent to ex parte decree in O.S.No. 699 of 2006 dated 28.2.2007. Further the counsel would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner is in exclusive possession in the plaint schedule property till today and to that effect, pahanies pertaining to 2007-2008 are also filed along with the plaint. Further the counsel also pointed out that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the first respondent colluded with the second respondent and got created the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 19.6.2007 and in the light of the same, directing the petitioner-plaintiff to represent the plaint may not be just and proper and let the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medak District number the suit if it is otherwise in order inasmuch as these objections are unsustainable objections. On the contrary Sri Prabhakar Peri , learned counsel representing the first respondent would maintain that this procedure which had been adopted by the petitioner-plaintiff is a peculiar procedure. The counsel also would maintain that when the plaint was returned raising certain objections, the counsel representing the plaintiff could have represented the same after complying with the objections and suppose the office is not satisfied, the counsel could have taken steps to see that the matter is called on bench and could have satisfied the court relating to objections and the counsel also would maintain that in such circumstances, the learned Judge is expected to make a judicial order instead of following the said procedure straight way approaching this Court by filing the Civil Revision Petition cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, in the light of Order 43 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Civil Revision Petition as such is not maintainable. At any rate the learned counsel would maintain that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner-plaintiff may be given liberty to re-present the plaint after complying with the objections. Heard the counsel. The revision petitioner filed the Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 6.5.2008 made in O.S.Sr.No. 1279 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medak and no doubt, it is stated that the same was re-presented before the vacation judge. In the plaint the relief of cancellation of document-agreement of sale/GPA and the relief of perpetual injunction and other reliefs had been prayed for. The plaint was returned on 24.4.2008 granting seven days time and the same was represented on 6.5.2008. Again Office raised several objections and returned the plaint for compliance on 6.5.2008. Being aggrieved of the second return of the plaint, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred. The counsel for the revision petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of the Court reported in AMIR ALI AND OTHERS VS. MANECK H. GHADIALI AND OTHERS (supra-1) , wherein the learned Judge of this Court observed at paragraph 15 as under: "Once a suit is presented before the civil Court, the examination thereof is taken up at various stages and from different angles. When the plaint presented before a court does not accord with the procedural aspects, it is returned to the plaintiff pointing out the objections. Opportunity is given for compliance. When the plaint presented before a court does not accord with the procedural aspects, it is returned to the plaintiff pointing out the objections. Opportunity is given for compliance. These objections may include those relating to adequacy of court, be it of territorial, pecuniary or the one of subject matter, maintainability or otherwise of the suit, in the light of the provisions contained in the various statutes, statement of cause of action with the required amount of certainty etc. Whenever a plaint is returned, the plaintiff would have a right to represent the same either by compliance with the deficiency pointed out by the court or by explaining as to how the objection raised by court does not arise. If the plaint is once again returned on not being satisfied with the explanation offered or lapse committed by the plaintiff, the remedy is to challenge the same by filing a revision." Further, strong reliance was placed on the decision reported in THANAMKI PRASAD VS. GUNTAMADUGU PULIAMMA AND OTHERS (supra-2) , wherein the learned Judge of this Court at paragraph 3 observed as under: "Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) enables the Court to reject a plaint when the plaint does not disclose cause of action, when the relief claimed is not properly valued, when the suit is barred by any law and when certain provisions are not complied with. The rejection of the plaint by a Court does not, however, bar a fresh suit. Be that as it is, though Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is not exhaustive at the stage of scrutiny of the case, no Court can appreciate the merits of the case and reject the plaint on the ground that the case of the plaintiff is not well-founded or devoid of any merit. In a suit for specific performance, as per Section 4 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (the Act), the provisions of the said Act alone are applicable. If there are any defects in the plaint for specific performance of agreement of sale, unless such defects go to the root of the mater, the plaint cannot be rejected at the stage of scrutiny. If there are any defects in the plaint for specific performance of agreement of sale, unless such defects go to the root of the mater, the plaint cannot be rejected at the stage of scrutiny. The Court cannot lose sight of the right of a seller or purchaser of the immovable property as conferred by the agreement of sale under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act) and the provisions of the Act. Under Section 13 of the Act, it is always open to the plaintiff/vendee to pray the Court to conduct enquiry into the title/defective title of the vendor and then give a direction to the vendors to perform their part of the contract after accepting the balance of sale consideration, if any. In rejecting the plaint, the learned District Judge lost sight of the provisions of Section 55 of TP Act and Section 13 of the Act and also Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. By reason of the rejection, the petitioner is now deprived of his valuable right. All the flaws pointed out by the learned District Judge- some of which are curable by the plaintiff himself at best can be a defence in the written statement. For these reasons, this Court is of considered opinion that this is fit case where the power of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India should be exercised in favour of the petitioner." It is no doubt true that on a second return of the plaint, certain office objections had been raised and instead of complying with the office objections and representing the plaint, the return made by raising objections, had been challenged by way of present Civil Revision Petition. Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with appeals against orders. Order 43 Rule (1)(a) specifies an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely:- (a) an order under Rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court (except where the procedure specified in Rule 10-A of Order VII has been followed). Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with power of court to fix a date of appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its return. Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with power of court to fix a date of appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its return. It is no doubt true that to the facts of the present case, the said provision may not be applicable. It is also true that in relation to the second return of the plaint made and the maintainability of revision petition and certain observations had been made by the learned Judge of this Court in AMIR ALI VS. MANECK H. GHADIALI (supra-1). On a careful reading of the initial objections raised while returning the plaint and the subsequent objections further raised on 6.5.2008 and these objections being not the same, it would have been just and proper on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff to re-submit the plaint after complying with the objections. Even otherwise, if such returns are being made without any just cause whatsoever, and if repeated unsustainable objections are being raised by the Office, and the counsel representing the petitioner-plaintiff could have taken steps to see that the matter is called on bench and could have invited an order in this regard. Instead of following such procedure, the said objections and returning of the plaint for complying with such objections had been challenged by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Civil Revision Petition is to be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner- plaintiff to comply with the objections and re-present the same in accordance with law, if necessary, along with an appropriate application, for condonation of delay and further liberty is given to take steps to see that the matter is called on bench, if so advised, and invite an order in this regard and let the learned Judge look into the grievance of the petitioner-plaintiff and make an appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. It is stated that while filing the present Civil Revision Petition, the original plaint had been presented here, the counsel is at liberty to receive the plaint back. Registry is directed to return the plaint to the counsel to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.