Registry Cannot Make Inroads Into Judiciary's Exclusive Domain & Ask Why A Party Is Impleaded : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the Registry cannot question or object to a petitioner's decision to implead a particular party as a respondent, nor can it demand an explanation for joining any specific party in the proceedings. “Registry cannot make inroads into areas within the exclusive domain of the judiciary and seek clarification as to why a particular party has been joined as...
The Supreme Court observed that the Registry cannot question or object to a petitioner's decision to implead a particular party as a respondent, nor can it demand an explanation for joining any specific party in the proceedings.
“Registry cannot make inroads into areas within the exclusive domain of the judiciary and seek clarification as to why a particular party has been joined as a respondent.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, while setting aside the Telangana High Court's order which accepted the Registry's objection regarding the impleadment of a particular Respondent by the Appellant in the petition.
The case arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a SARFAESI dispute, where the petitioner alleged fraudulent and collusive conduct by a court-appointed Commissioner in taking possession of a secured asset in violation of the Act and rules. The High Court Registry objected to the prayer clause and the array of parties, and the Division Bench, agreeing with these objections, rejected the writ petition and directed the return of the papers.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugner order, the Court said that the petitioner, being dominus litis is empowered “to decide who is to be joined as a party and who is not to be joined.”
“Unnecessary parties could be deleted by the High Court referring to principles flowing from Order I Rule 10, CPC”, the Court observed, stressing that it is impermissible for the Registry to usurp the role of the judiciary to ascertain the need and importance of an impleadment of a particular party.
“If any party has been mischievously joined with an intention to harass him or with some hidden ill-motive, it is open to the High Court to unearth the truth and deal with the situation appropriately on the judicial side.”, the court said, highlighting the option available with the Courts to add or strike out the parties.
“We are pained to observe that there has been an abandonment of its judicial role by the High Court.”, the court observed, pointing out the complacency on the High Court's part to do its duty on the judicial side to do a necessary check on whether the parties arrayed in the Appellant's petition were needed or not.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was revived before the High Court. The High Court's Chief Justice was directed to list the petition before the Division Bench other than the bench from which the impugned order arises, which shall hear the same in accordance with law.
“Objections raised by the Registry stand overruled, and consequently, the order under appeal is set aside. This would result in revival of the writpetition, which shall be duly registered and marked as defect-free.”, the court directed.
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Rejection of Writ Petition at the threshold on technical office objections – Sustainability of – High Court rejected a writ petition arising under the SARFAESI Act based on Registry objections regarding prayer revision, multiple reliefs in a single prayer, and joinder of parties – Held that the High Court erred in sustaining these technical objections to "nip a proceeding in the bud" - When fraud and collusion are alleged specifically regarding the conduct of a Commissioner appointed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; the court must remember the maxim "fraus omnia corrumpit" (fraud unravels everything) - Allegations of fraud should not be buried without an examination of merits due to mere technicalities.
Pleadings and Reliefs – Order VII Rule 7 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Multiple reliefs and defective prayers –Rejection of a writ petition because multiple reliefs were claimed in a single prayer is "perhaps, unprecedented" - If a prayer is defective or does not conform to Writ Rules, the High Court should permit amendments under principles of Order VI Rule 17 CPC or mould the relief - A claim cannot be dismissed simply because a suitor claims a wider relief than they are entitled to; the court remains free to grant a lesser relief.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10 – Dominus Litis – Joinder of Parties – Noted that the petitioner is dominus litis and has the right to decide who to join as a party - The Registry cannot make inroads into judicial domains by questioning why a particular party was arrayed as a respondent - If unnecessary parties are joined, Supreme Court can delete them under Order I Rule 10 CPC or deal with it judicially if done with ill-motive - Supreme Court observed with "pain" that there was an "abandonment of its judicial role by the High Court" in rejecting the petition in such an unjust manner – Appeal allowed. [Paras 7-13]
Cause Title: SRI MUKUND MAHESWAR & ANR. VERSUS AXIS BANK LTD. & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 82
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Gayathri, AOR Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Raju, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :