Judgment :- The plaintiffs, in a suit filed before the District Court, Namakkal, in S.R.No.1825 of 2009, are the revision petitioners. The prayer is to direct the lower court to register the plaint, instead of returning the matter time and again on the ground of non-compliance of the directions. 2. The suit vide S.R.No.1825 of 2009 was preferred by the revision petitioners praying for framing a Scheme in respect of the first respondent trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The plaint was returned on 14. 2009 pointing out the following defects. RETURN NO.I "1. Value of the suit to be furnished. 2. Court fees due for the suit and provision of law under C.F.Act to be mentioned. 3. How this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. Properties involved in the suit if any to be furnished. 5. Short cause title to be furnished correctly. Retd: Time one month. Xxx Xxx Sd/.PDJ Sd/.PDJ 14. 09 Namakkal 14. 09" The defects as indicated by the Court was rectified and it was re-presented on 14. 2009 itself. 4. The plaint was once again returned on 15. 2009 with the following remarks. RETURN NO.II "Previous return No.4 complied with is not satisfactory. Retd: Time one month. Xxx Xxx 15. 09 Sd/.PDJNamakkal 15. 09" The defect pointed out on 15. 2009 was answered by the petitioners and the plaint was again re-presented. 5. The re-presented plaint was returned for the third time on 16. 2009 with the following remarks:- RETURN NO.III "Value of the suit to be mentioned in the plaint and under correct provision of law under Court Fees Act and deficit court fee if any to be paid." Retd: Time one month. Xxx Xxx 16. 09 Sd/.PDJNamakkal 16. 09" The details sought for by the learned District Judge was furnished and the plaint was accordingly re-presented. 6. The final return was on 18. 2009 and it would read thus:- RETURN NO.IV "The previous returns dated 14. 2009, 15. 2009 and 16. 2009 to be correctly complied with. The returns complied with should be incorporated in the plaint itself wherever it is applicable.Returned. Time one month. Xxx Xxx 18. 09 Sd/.PDJ Namakkal 18. 09" 7. The return of plaint successively for the fourth time made the petitioners to file the revision petition. 8. 2009, 15. 2009 and 16. 2009 to be correctly complied with. The returns complied with should be incorporated in the plaint itself wherever it is applicable.Returned. Time one month. Xxx Xxx 18. 09 Sd/.PDJ Namakkal 18. 09" 7. The return of plaint successively for the fourth time made the petitioners to file the revision petition. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the defects as pointed out by the learned District Judge was promptly rectified and the plaint was represented. However time and again the learned Judge was returning the plaint by pointing out reasons one after another. Some of the particulars sought in the return memo were already furnished in the original plaint itself and as such there was total non-application of mind, which alone resulted in returning the plaint on numerous occasions. According to the learned counsel this court has to take corrective measures to put the Subordinate Courts in order. 9. The Civil Procedure Code contains provisions regarding institution of suits. The journey between presenting a plaint and obtaining a decree is too long and rather difficult on account of ordained procedures. It is not easy to obtain a decree in a civil litigation within a short span of time. Even after obtaining decree from the court of original jurisdiction, the decree holder has to wait long for the purpose of enjoying the fruits of the decree, on account of first appeals and second appeals, which would invariably be taken advantage of by the unsuccessful opponents. The decree confirmed ultimately by the Apex Court in the hierarchy would again be challenged in execution on various grounds. Even though the Executing Court was not expected to go behind the decree, the fact remains that execution of decree is resisted many a time successfully for years together. 10. The litigants would be put to difficulties in case the Court of original jurisdiction drag them from pillar to post, even before registering the plaint. The attempt of the Court before registering the plaint should be to ascertain as to whether the procedural requirement for filing such a suit has been complied with by the plaintiff. The statutory provisions as contained under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the particulars to be contained in the plaint. The attempt of the Court before registering the plaint should be to ascertain as to whether the procedural requirement for filing such a suit has been complied with by the plaintiff. The statutory provisions as contained under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the particulars to be contained in the plaint. In addition to the institution of the suit of general nature, there are suits in particular cases like the suit by or against the Government or public officers in their official capacity, inter-pleader suits, suits relating to public nuisance or other wrongful acts affecting the public at large as well as suits relating to public charities within the meaning of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is a prescribed procedure contemplated for institution of such specified suits. The court was obliged to examine as to whether the plaintiff has complied with such fundamental procedures, and in case of such compliance, the Court has no other alternative than to register the plaint. The Court was not powerless even after registering the plaint. The statutory provision as per Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to reject the plaint at any point of time. It is not necessary to file written statement by the defendant for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction to reject the plaint. 11. It would be appropriate to quote the observation of Mr.Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 , with respect to the jurisdiction of the trial court to reject the plaint, which reads thus :- "5. ... The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: “It is dangerous to be too good.” 6. The trial court in this case will remind itself of Section 35-A CPC and take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and altogether groundless. In any view, that suit has no survival value and should be disposed of forthwith after giving an immediate hearing to the parties concerned. 12. When there is an in-built procedure in the Civil Procedure Code itself to consider the maintainability of the suit at a later point of time, the verification of the plaint at the time of registration should only be for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the plaint satisfies the legal requirements as provided under the Civil Procedure Code. 13. There should be a uniform procedure in the matter of consideration of plaint and petitions for the purpose of registration. Whenever a plaint is filed, it has to be verified by the Ministerial Officer of the Court entrusted with the duty to examine the plaint. Such officer has to note down all the deficiencies in the plaint for the purpose of compliance. The defects pointed out by the court in its entirety should be noted in the docket and the plaintiff should be directed to rectify those defects within a reasonable time fixed by the court. The plaint duly re-presented after compliance should be examined again not for the purpose of inventing further defects for return, but for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the initial returns were duly complied with. This does not mean that it was not permissible to indicate defects afresh which were not mentioned in the original return. In exceptional cases, when it was made out that a particular defect was omitted to be mentioned in the original return, the court would be at liberty to indicate such defects subsequently. However such cases should be exceptional. This does not mean that it was not permissible to indicate defects afresh which were not mentioned in the original return. In exceptional cases, when it was made out that a particular defect was omitted to be mentioned in the original return, the court would be at liberty to indicate such defects subsequently. However such cases should be exceptional. In the normal circumstances, all the defects should be pointed out during the initial return itself. Even after complying with the defects pointed out earlier by way of first or second return, the Court was not convinced of the compliance reported by the plaintiff, it would be open to the plaintiff to request the court to post the matter for maintainability, so as to enable the court to hear the plaintiff with respect to the defects pointed out and the compliance made in respect of those defects. When a request for such hearing is made, it should be the endeavour of the court to hear the plaintiffs counsel at the earliest point of time. It would enable both the court as well as the counsel to understand the fundamental defects in the plaint and the steps to taken to rectify those defects. 14. The institution of large number of civil suits shows the trust reposed by the litigants in our justice delivery system. In the event of delaying the matter at the entry point itself it would prompt the litigants to take steps to redress their grievance otherwise than in due process of law. 15. The difficulties normally faced by the seekers of justice was indicated by the Supreme Court in Shreenath v. Rajesh, (1998) 4 SCC 543 , at page 545 thus: "The seeker of justice many a time has to take long circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of courts and the procedural law. Such persons are and can be dragged till the last ladder of the said hierarchy for receiving justice but even here he only breathes fear of receiving the fruits of that justice for which he has been aspiring to receive. The reach this stage is in itself an achievement and satisfaction as he, by then has passed through a long arduous journey of the procedural law with many hurdles replica of mountain terrain with ridges and furrows. The reach this stage is in itself an achievement and satisfaction as he, by then has passed through a long arduous journey of the procedural law with many hurdles replica of mountain terrain with ridges and furrows. When he is ready to take the bite of that fruit, he has to pass through the same terrain of the procedural law in the execution proceedings the morose is writ large on his face. What looked inevitable to him to receive it at his hands distance is deluded back into the horizon. The creation of the hierarchy of courts was for a reasonable objective for conferring greater satisfaction to the parties that errors, if any, by any of the lower courts under the scrutiny of a higher court be rectified and long procedural laws also with good intention to exclude and filter out all unwanted who may be the cause of obstruction to such seeker in his journey to justice. But this obviously is one of the causes of delay in justice. Of course, under this pattern the party wrongfully gaining within permissible limits also stretches the litigation as much as possible. Thus this has been the cause of anxiety and concern of various authorities, legislators and courts. How to eliminate such a long consuming justice? We must confess that we have still to go a long way before true satisfaction in this regard is received. Even after one reaches the stage of final decree, he has to undergo a long distance by passing through the ordained procedure in the execution proceedings before he receives the bowl of justice. 16. The Honble Supreme Court in R.N.Jadi & Brothers vs. Subhashchandra (2007(9) Scale 202) observed that the procedural law is always sub-servient and is in aid to justice. It reads thus: "9. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the Court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. ............. 13. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice." 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners would submit that the entire returns as communicated by orders dated 14. 2009, 15. 2009 and 16. 2009 were already complied with by the revision petitioners and as such, the learned trial Judge was not justified in returning the plaint again on 18. 2009. 18. The petitioners appear to have re-presented the plaint after rectifying the defects pointed out by the learned District Judge as per order dated 14. 2009, 15. 2009 and 16. 1009. 19. I have gone through the last return dated 18. 2009. It was not clear from the said return as to what was meant by "to be correctly complied with". The court was not expected to put the parties in darkness. The order should speak for itself. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the compliance report submitted that all the defects were rectified and as such the return made on 18. 2009 was unwarranted and accordingly prayed for a direction to the learned District Judge to register the plaint forthwith. However I am of the view that the trial Court should be directed to consider the matter on merits as there was nothing to indicate as to why the Court has come to the conclusion that the compliance was not correct. 21. Accordingly the revision petitioners are directed to re-present the plaint with their remarks in respect of the return dated 18. 21. Accordingly the revision petitioners are directed to re-present the plaint with their remarks in respect of the return dated 18. 2009 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such receipt, the learned District Judge is directed to consider and dispose of the matter on merits and as per law within one week thereafter. 22. The civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently the connected MP is closed. No costs.