JUDGMENT P. Naveen Rao, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to grant following reliefs: "... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, (a) declaring that the order dated 14.11.2022 in OSSR No. 7561/2022 passed by respondent No. 2 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also (b) declare that returning unregistered Original Suit OSSR No. 7561/2022 for four times without passing any orders after hearing on objections and compliance is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and (c) consequently, set aside the same by allowing this writ petition and pass any other order(s) that deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The petitioner has arrayed the High Court, the I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad and the Chief Ministerial Officer (CMO), Office of I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, as respondents. 3. On scrutiny, the Registry returned the writ petition raising following objection: "When the suit was returned by the lower Court with objections for compliance please explain how the writ petition is entertainable against the same. Please clarify." 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner re-presented the writ petition with the following endorsement: "I am sorry to say that the 'insensitive' Scrutiny Officer returned this W.P. after 5 days without applying mind on the cause of action. Respondent No. 2 is not passing order after hearing and returning for four times. Hence, W.P. is filed. Therefore, maintainable. If not satisfied, please post before Bench." 5. The Registry had placed the matter before this Bench for orders or maintainability of the writ petition. 6. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. Learned Counsel would submit that what is under challenge is not a judicial order, but is a ministerial decision. Therefore, it is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, writ petition is maintainable. He would submit that no decision is made by learned Trial Judge, but only returned the plaint directing the petitioner to comply with earlier objections. He would submit that once objections are complied, it is no more open to return the plain again and again and learned Trial Judge ought to have passed orders on judicial side. 7. He would submit that scrutiny of plaint is a ministerial exercise and the job assigned to CMO. He would submit that once objections are complied, it is no more open to return the plain again and again and learned Trial Judge ought to have passed orders on judicial side. 7. He would submit that scrutiny of plaint is a ministerial exercise and the job assigned to CMO. On scrutiny, he may raise objections, but once the Counsel for plaintiff replied to the objections raised by CMO, it must be placed before the Court for decision on judicial side. Whereas, when the matter was placed before the Trial Judge, instead of passing orders on judicial side, he has returned the plaint to comply with the objections raised by CMO. Such course is not available to Trial Judge. It is ex facie illegal. He would further submit that it would amount to testing his decision on administrative side by sitting on judicial side, which is against basic tenants of law. 8. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on following decisions. (i) P. Surendran v. State by Inspector of Police, (2019) 9 SCC 154 ; (ii) Dhulabhai and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 SC 78 ; (iii) Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, 2015 (4) ALD 139 (SC) : (2015) 5 SCC 423 and (iv) Order of this Court dated 13.07.2018 in WP No. 40103 of 2017. 9. Having regard to reliefs sought and deposition to the affidavit in the writ- petition and submissions made by learned Counsel, following issue arises for consideration. 10. Whether the decision of learned Trial Judge returning the plaint on fourth occasion directing the plaintiff to comply with earlier objections is amenable to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and whether office objection is sustainable? 11. Before dwelling into the issue, facts leading to filing this writ petition are noted hereunder: Plaintiff instituted OSSR No. 7561 of 2022 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad praying to grant following reliefs: "(a) Deliver up and cancel the Gift Deed No. 288/2008 dated 21.02.2008 under Section 31(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and consequently send a copy of the decree to the SRO, Bowenpally and direct to note on the copy of the gift deed contained in his books the fact of its cancellation Section 31(2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. (b) Consequently, grant ancillary relief and declare the impugned order 08.06.2022 vide Lr. No. B/1143/2022 on the file of defendant No. 2 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and set aside the same. (c) Consequently grant ancillary relief of preventive perpetual/permanent injunction under Sections 36 and 37 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against defendant No. 1 from entering the suit schedule property and from disturbing the continuous open and peaceful possession of the plaintiff, (d) Consequently grant ancillary relief and declare that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 12 years, and (e) Consequently award costs of the suit and pass any other order(s) that deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 12. On scrutiny, the CMO raised the objections. 13. The learned Counsel on record replied to the said objections in the form of memo and submitted on 22.10.2022. In the memo, objection was also raised on the competence of the CMO to raise such objections as they are beyond the scope of the administrative power granted to him by the High Court for the purpose of numbering the suit. 14. The office objections raised on 22.10.2022 are not filed. From the reading of the Memo filed by the learned Counsel for plaintiff on 22.10.2022, it appears three objections raised on 20.10.2022 read as under: "1. Explain how this Court is Appellate Court for the orders passed by the defendant No. 2-Tribunal. 2. Explain how this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 3. When quasi-judicial proceeding are pending before the Hon'ble High Court, how this suit is maintainable." 15. On 02.11.2022 the plaint was returned with the following objections: "1. State how this Court has got jurisdiction to maintain the civil suit against the orders passed by defendant No. 2 i.e., Tribunal-cum-Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The relief of declaration of possession is independent and separate for which separate Court fee to be paid i.e., relief No. (d) 3. The relief of permanent injunction is to be valued for Court fee separately. Hence, returned. Time (07) days." 16. 2. The relief of declaration of possession is independent and separate for which separate Court fee to be paid i.e., relief No. (d) 3. The relief of permanent injunction is to be valued for Court fee separately. Hence, returned. Time (07) days." 16. Learned Counsel resubmitted on 03.11.2022 by stating in reply to the office objections as: "Returning of second time is impermissible and directly hit by the 'Rule against Bias' as 'Nobody can be a Judge of their own cause'. Anyhow, in the interest of Justice, I am complying the same. Objection No. 1 is pari materia to earlier objection. Therefore, compliance remains the same. Remaining 3 objections are consequential and ancillary. Therefore, as per TSCFSV Act, 1956, Court fee need not be paid. If not satisfied, call on Bench." 17. On 03.11.2022 the learned Trial Judge directed the suit to be called on the Bench. Heard and posted the case for consideration on 07.11.2022. 18. On 07.11.2022, learned Trial Judge passed following order: "Heard on Bench. Returned with the same objections dated 02.11.2022 for compliance. Time (07) days." 19. On 10.11.2022, learned Counsel for plaintiff resubmitted with the following endorsement: "CMO must raise objection. Just must decide between CMO and plaintiff. Judge raising objection and deciding the same is 100% illegal and dangerous practice of Law. Returning for 3rd time without passing order is 100% violative of rules for numbering." 20. On 14.11.2022 the plaint was returned with the following endorsement: "1. The CMO on due verification of the filing of the suit, would put note either for registration or for return. It is ultimately, for the Presiding Officer to accept and sign either for registration or for return. 2. Since, it was heard by calling the matter on Bench and stood posted for consideration, the Presiding Officer having not satisfied with the resubmission returned for compliance of the objections. 3. The re-submission, since not in compliance, it is hereby returned for compliance of the objections dated 02.11.2022. Hence, returned, time (07) days." 21. At that stage the present writ petition is filed. 22. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively discussed the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227, by referring to previous leading judgments on the subject formulated few principles, as extracted hereunder: xxxx xxxx 48. 22. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively discussed the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227, by referring to previous leading judgments on the subject formulated few principles, as extracted hereunder: xxxx xxxx 48. The jurisdiction under Article 226 normally is exercised where a party is affected but power under Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice. In fact, the power under Article 226 is exercised in favour of persons or citizens for vindication of their fundamental right or other statutory rights. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is exercised by the High Court for vindication of its position as the highest judicial authority in the State. In certain cases where there is infringement of fundamental right, the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution can be claimed ex debito justitiae or as a matter of right. But in cases where the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227, such exercise is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right. From an order of a Single Judge passed under Article 226, a letter patent appeal or an intra-Court appeal is maintainable. But no such appeal is maintainable from an order passed by a Single Judge of a High Court in exercise of power under Article 227. In almost all the High Courts, rules have been framed for regulating the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. No such rule appears to have been framed for exercise of High Court's power under Article 227 possibly to keep such exercise entirely in the domain of the discretion of High Court. 23. In Radhey Shyam's case (supra), a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed assailing an interim order of the Civil Court in a pending suit. The Allahabad High Court then vacated interim order exercising its power under Article 226 and also by placing reliance on a two Judges Bench decision in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (5) ALD 36 (SC) : (2003) 6 SCC 675 , Where the Court had taken a view that a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable. The Allahabad High Court then vacated interim order exercising its power under Article 226 and also by placing reliance on a two Judges Bench decision in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (5) ALD 36 (SC) : (2003) 6 SCC 675 , Where the Court had taken a view that a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable. The three Judges Bench in Radhey Shyam's case (supra), was in disagreement with the view taken in Surya Dev Rai's case (supra). The Court also observed that Swya Deva Rai's case (supra), has not properly followed the ratio laid down by a nine Judges Bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 (3) SCR 744 , where it was held that a writ of certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of inferior Courts of civil jurisdiction. Therefore three-Judges Bench in Radhey Shyam's case (supra), concluded that the ration of Swya Dev Rai's case (supra), was not good law. It is held that the judicial order passed by a Civil Court is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court referred to the decision in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 (3) ALD 63 (SC) - (2003) 3 SCC 524 : "19. Another Bench of three-Judges in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 (3) ALD 63 (SC) : (2003) 3 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (Cri.) 762, considered the question whether remedy of writ will be available when remedy of appeal was on limited grounds. This Court held : (SCC P. 527, Para 6) "6. The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insure has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal Section 149(2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the Act (see National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 (6) ALD 1 (SC) : (2007) 7 SCC 456 : 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1788). Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 (6) ALD 1 (SC) : (2007) 7 SCC 456 : 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1788). This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 115 CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a matter of illustration, where a Trial Court in a civil suit refused to grant temporary injunction and an appeal against refusal to grant injunction has been rejected, and a State enactment has barred the remedy of filing revision under Section 115 CPC, in such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, where the State Legislature has barred a remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 115 CPC, no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would lie for the reason that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) 20. This Court in judgment dated 06.02.1989 in Qamruddin v. Rasul Baksh, (1990) 1 AWC 308 (SC), which has been quoted in the Allahabad High Court judgment in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, AIR 1991 All. 114 , considered the issued of writ of certiorari and mandamus against interim order of the Civil Court and held : (Qamruddin's case (supra), AWC P. 309, Para 40) "4..... 114 , considered the issued of writ of certiorari and mandamus against interim order of the Civil Court and held : (Qamruddin's case (supra), AWC P. 309, Para 40) "4..... If the order of injunction is passed by a competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter, it is not permissible for the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari in the instant case the learned Single Judge of the High Court further failed to realize that a writ of mandamus could not be issued in this case. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual unless he is under a statutory duty to perform a public duty, the dispute involved in the instant case was entirely between two private parties, which could not be a subject-matter of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single fudge ignored this basis principle of writ jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. There was no occasion or justification for issue of a writ of certiorari or mandamus. The High Court committed serious error of jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the District fudge." 21. Thus, it has been clearly laid down by this Court that an order of the Civil Court could be challenged under Article 227 and not under Article 226. 29. Accordingly, we answer the question referred as follows: 29.1 Judicial orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 29.2 Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226. 29.3. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (5) ALD 36 (SC) : (2003) 6 SCC 675 ] is overruled." 24. In P. Surendran's case (supra), the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 937 of 2017 alongwith three others, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 302 and 506 of the IPC as well as offence under Section 3(ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner filed an Anticipatory Bail Application under Crl. MP No. 5697 of 2018 before the Kancheepuram Principal Sessions Judge, which was rejected. He then approached the High Court of Madras seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner filed an Anticipatory Bail Application under Crl. MP No. 5697 of 2018 before the Kancheepuram Principal Sessions Judge, which was rejected. He then approached the High Court of Madras seeking anticipatory bail. The Registry raised following objection: "It may be staled how this petition is maintainable, since the offence is under the SC/ST Act." 24A. The petitioner replied to the objection, but the Registry rejected it again and dismissed the Anticipatory Bail Application on grounds of maintainability for consideration. 24B. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court on the following question: "Was the Madras HC Registry wrong in not numbering the petition, and does the dismissal of the petition on the ground of maintainability of the Registry impinge upon the judicial function of the High Court?" 24C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "9. The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice. A Constitution Bench of five Judges in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand and others, AIR 1963 SC 677 , formulated the following criteria to ascertain whether a decision or an act is judicial function or not, in the following manner: 1. It is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the application of objective standards to facts found in the light of pre-existing legal rule; 2. It declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting their Civil Rights: 3. That the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact. 10. The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. 10. The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act itself indicates at application of judicial mind. In this context, we accept the statement of the Attorney General, that' the determination in this case is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not have rejected the numbering." 11. "Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the petition, by the Madras High Court Registry Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate Bench." 25. In the case on hand, CMO only raised objections on maintainability of prayers sought in the plaint. On judicial side learned Judge considered the objections raised by the CMO and replies furnished by the learned Counsel and passed orders on judicial side on 02.11.2022 and pointing out objections on maintainability of suit, suit was returned for compliance. On resubmission against matter was heard in the Court and by order dated 07.11.2022 returned the plaint reiterating the objections noted on 02.11.2022. The learned Counsel resubmitted on 10.11.2022 pointing out that only CMO should raise objection and not the learned Judge, but earlier objections were not complied. The matter was considered on 14.11.2022 and learned Judge returned for compliance of objections dated 02.11.2022. 26. The Scrutiny Officer raised objection on maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel replied saying that the learned Trial Judge was not passing order after hearing and returning for four times. Having regard to the law on the subject, this reply does not answer issue of maintainability. 27. From the extract of Court proceedings, it is apparent that the learned Trial Judge passed orders on judicial side. As consistently held by the Courts in India, against an order on judicial side, no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. The office objection is sustained. 27. From the extract of Court proceedings, it is apparent that the learned Trial Judge passed orders on judicial side. As consistently held by the Courts in India, against an order on judicial side, no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. The office objection is sustained. WP (SR) No. 51605 of 2022 is dismissed.