Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Telangana High Court’s order that had rejected a borrower’s writ petition after accepting Registry objections, and directed that the petition be revived, registered as defect-free, and placed before the Chief Justice for listing before a different Division Bench. The Court held that the Registry cannot question a petitioner’s choice to implead particular respondents or require reasons for joining any party, since such matters fall for judicial consideration.

The borrowers filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Telangana High Court in relation to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The High Court Registry raised objections, including that the prayer required revision, that clarification was needed for seeking multiple reliefs in a single prayer, and that reasons be stated for arraying certain parties as respondents.

Also Read: Supreme Court Urges Govts To Digitize Land Records Using Tamper-Proof Technology Like Blockchain

The borrowers contended that they were “borrowers” under Section 2(1)(f) of the 2002 Act, and alleged that an advocate was appointed as commissioner by the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 14 to take possession of the secured asset. They alleged that the commissioner, acting fraudulently and/or in collusion with the secured creditor, took possession without adhering to the Act and the rules framed under it.

The writ petition was placed before a Division Bench of the High Court with these office objections, and the petition was rejected while sustaining them, with papers directed to be returned to counsel.

The Court recorded that “In a situation such as this, where the high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court had been invoked by the appellants alleging fraud and collusion, the High Court erred in not bearing in mind the maxim “fraus omnia corrumpit” which translates to “fraud unravels everything.”  It stated, “Even otherwise, we find no merit in the office objections which the High Court erroneously sustained.”

On the form of relief, the Court observed, “Requirement of Order VII Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that relief claimed ought to be specifically stated.” It recorded, “Having read the prayer clauses, there can be no doubt as to the relief that the appellants sought from the High Court.” The Court stated, “Whether or not they are entitled thereto is altogether a different matter.” It also recorded, “rejection of a writ petition on the ground that multiple relief has been claimed in a single prayer is, perhaps, unprecedented.”

It observed that being dominus litis, the appellant is empowered “to decide who is to be joined as a party and who is not to be joined.” The Court recorded, “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.”

It stated, “Unnecessary parties could be deleted by the High Court referring to principles flowing from Order I Rule 10, CPC.” It added, “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 also observed, “We are pained to observe that there has been an abandonment of its judicial role by the High Court.”

Also Read: Shared Site-Visit Photograph By Bidders Not Enough To Establish Cartelisation; Gauhati High Court Dismisses Tender Challenge For No Integrity Commitment Breach

The Court directed: “Since the writ petition of the appellants was rejected by the High Court in an unjust manner noted above, we see no reason to even issue notice to the respondents and hear them. Objections raised by the Registry stand overruled and consequently, the order under appeal is set aside. This would result in revival of the writ petition, which shall be duly registered and marked as defect-free. The appeal is, thus, allowed, keeping all points on merits open.”

“Registry of the High Court is required to place the writ petition of the appellants before the Chief Justice, whereafter the same may be placed before any Division Bench other than the one which passed the impugned order. Such bench may proceed to consider it in accordance with law bearing in mind what we have expressed above.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For Petitioner(s): Ms. Gayathri, AOR Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Raju, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Adv.

Case Title: SRI MUKUND MAHESWAR & ANR. VERSUS AXIS BANK LTD. & ORS.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 84
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2026 [arising out of SLP (C) No. OF 2026] [Diary No. 63316 OF 2025]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma