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

The Supreme Court observed that the Registry has no authority to question or object to a petitioner’s decision to implead a particular party as a respondent, nor can it seek any explanation for the inclusion of a specific party in judicial proceedings.

The ruling set aside a Telangana High Court order that had upheld Registry objections to the array of parties and rejected the writ petition at the threshold.

The dispute arose from a writ petition under Article 226 in a SARFAESI matter, wherein the petitioner alleged fraudulent and collusive conduct by a court-appointed Commissioner while taking possession of a secured asset. The High Court Registry objected to the prayer clause and the array of parties, and the Division Bench upheld these objections, rejecting the writ petition and directing the return of the papers. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

The Bench comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “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. Unnecessary parties could be deleted by the High Court referring to principles flowing from Order I Rule 10, CPC. 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 Supreme Court stated, “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 Supreme Court expressed concern over the High Court’s failure to discharge its judicial duty by merely accepting Registry objections without examining whether the parties impleaded were necessary. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the writ petition was restored, and the Chief Justice was directed to place the matter before a different Division Bench for fresh consideration in accordance with law.