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 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.Cause Title: SRI MUKUND MAHESWAR & ANR. VERSUS AXIS BANK LTD. & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 82Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Gayathri, AOR Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Raju, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

Registry Cannot Make Inroads Into Judiciary's Exclusive Domain & Ask Why A Party Is Impleaded : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Registry Cannot Make Inroads Into Judiciary's Exclusive Domain & Ask Why A Party Is Impleaded : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers