Recently, the Supreme Court stepped in to protect the judiciary’s exclusive domain, flagging a serious lapse by the Telangana High Court Registry that resulted in the rejection of a writ petition at the threshold. The Apex Court examined whether court registries can question a litigant’s choice of parties and the framing of prayers, an issue striking at the heart of access to constitutional remedies and judicial independence.
The controversy began when borrowers Sri Mukund Maheswar and another invoked Article 226 of the Constitution in a SARFAESI dispute, alleging fraudulent and collusive conduct by a court-appointed commissioner while taking possession of a secured asset. Instead of the petition being tested on merits, the High Court Registry raised objections to the prayer clause and the array of respondents, questioning why certain parties were impleaded and why multiple reliefs were sought in a single prayer.
The High Court accepted these objections, rejected the writ petition outright, and ordered the papers to be returned, prompting the appellants to move the Top Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma found the High Court’s approach deeply flawed. Stressing that allegations of fraud deserve judicial examination, the Court invoked the maxim “fraus omnia corrumpit” and cautioned against burying such claims on technical grounds.
The Bench held that “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.” Reiterating that a petitioner, as dominus litis, is entitled to decide whom to implead, the Court said unnecessary parties could be dealt with judicially under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, not by the Registry.
Consequently, the Court overruled the Registry’s objections, set aside the High Court order, revived the writ petition, and directed its listing before a different Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 63316 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Gayathri, Adv. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. P. Venkat Raju, Adv. Santosh Kumar Yadav,
Advocate for the Respondent: None Appeared
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
