Registry Cannot Make Inroads Into Judiciary’s Exclusive Domain And Question Impleadment Of Parties: Supreme Court

Introduction

In a significant ruling reaffirming the exclusive judicial domain over procedural decisions, the Supreme Court of India has held that a court 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 such impleadment. The Court emphasised that such scrutiny falls strictly within the judicial sphere and not the administrative functioning of the Registry.

Contents

Introduction Bench And Case Details Key Observation Of The Supreme Court Background Of The Case Objections Raised By The High Court Registry Appeal Before The Supreme Court Doctrine Of Dominus Litis Reiterated Role Of Courts Under Order I Rule 10 CPC Strong Criticism Of High Court’s Approach Safeguards Against Abuse Of Impleadment Final Directions Issued By The Supreme Court Significance Of The Judgment Conclusion

The ruling came while setting aside a Telangana High Court order that had accepted objections raised by the Registry regarding the array of parties in a writ petition, ultimately leading to the rejection of the petition at the threshold.

Bench And Case Details

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 82.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, revived the writ petition, and issued strong observations against the Registry’s interference in judicial decision-making.

Key Observation Of The Supreme Court

The Bench categorically held:

“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.”

The Court clarified that the Registry’s role is administrative, limited to pointing out formal defects, and does not extend to examining the necessity, relevance, or motive behind impleading parties.

Background Of The Case

The case originated from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Telangana High Court in connection with a SARFAESI dispute.

Allegations By The Petitioner

The petitioner had alleged:

Fraudulent and collusive conduct by a court-appointed Commissioner,
Illegal possession of a secured asset, and
Violations of the SARFAESI Act and Rules during enforcement proceedings.

In the writ petition, the petitioner impleaded multiple parties, including those allegedly involved in the unlawful acts.

Objections Raised By The High Court Registry

The High Court Registry objected to:

The prayer clause, and
The array of parties, questioning the inclusion of certain respondents.

Instead of placing these objections for judicial consideration, the Registry effectively questioned the justification for impleadment.

The Division Bench of the High Court accepted the Registry’s objections, rejected the writ petition, and directed the return of the papers without examining the merits of the case.

Appeal Before The Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the rejection of the writ petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

The primary contention before the apex court was that:

The Registry had exceeded its authority, and
The High Court had abdicated its judicial duty by endorsing the Registry’s objections without independent judicial scrutiny.

Doctrine Of Dominus Litis Reiterated

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that the petitioner is dominus litis, meaning:

“The petitioner is empowered to decide who is to be joined as a party and who is not to be joined.”

The Court held that choosing parties to litigation is a strategic and legal decision, vested in the litigant and subject only to judicial review, not administrative veto.

Role Of Courts Under Order I Rule 10 CPC

The Bench clarified that:

If unnecessary or improper parties are impleaded,
The Court itself may strike them out or add parties by invoking Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Importantly, this determination must be made on the judicial side, after application of mind, and not by the Registry.

Strong Criticism Of High Court’s Approach

In unusually sharp remarks, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the High Court’s conduct, stating:

“We are pained to observe that there has been an abandonment of its judicial role by the High Court.”

The Court observed that the High Court failed to:

Examine whether the impleaded parties were necessary or proper, and
Exercise its judicial powers to deal with alleged misuse of impleadment.

Safeguards Against Abuse Of Impleadment

Addressing concerns of misuse, the Court clarified that:

If a party is impleaded mischievously,
With intent to harass or for oblique purposes,

It is open to the Court to:

Uncover the truth,
Strike out such parties, and
Pass appropriate orders, including costs.

However, this assessment must always be judicial, not administrative.

Final Directions Issued By The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the impugned High Court order,
Overruled the Registry’s objections, and
Directed that the writ petition be revived, registered, and treated as defect-free.

Additionally, the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court was directed to:

List the writ petition before a Division Bench other than the one that passed the impugned order, and
Ensure that it is heard in accordance with law.

Significance Of The Judgment

This ruling is significant for several reasons:

Clarifies limits of Registry powers
The judgment draws a clear line between administrative scrutiny and judicial adjudication.
Strengthens access to justice
Litigants cannot be non-suited at the threshold due to Registry objections on substantive matters.
Reaffirms procedural fairness
Courts must decide procedural disputes judicially, not defer to Registry opinions.
Guidance for High Courts nationwide
The ruling serves as a precedent against mechanical rejection of petitions based on Registry objections.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores a fundamental principle of constitutional adjudication: procedural justice cannot be outsourced to administrative authorities. By reaffirming that questions relating to impleadment lie squarely within the judiciary’s domain, the Court has protected both litigant autonomy and judicial independence.

As High Courts grapple with docket pressure and procedural scrutiny, this judgment serves as a timely reminder that efficiency cannot come at the cost of judicial responsibility.