‘Unjust, unprecedented’: Supreme Court on Telangana HC rejecting plea seeking multiple reliefs in 1 prayer

Also, if the high court had found the prayer clause defective in any manner, or not in the form required by its rules, the prayers could have been amended to ensure conformity with the writ rules, or, if necessary, the relief could even have been moulded without insisting on amendment of the prayer, the court added.

The Supreme Court also took exception to the HC Registry objecting to the petitioner’s list of respondents, saying, “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.”

Section 14 of SARFAESI Act

The decision came on an appeal challenging the high court’s July 2, 2025, decision that agreed to objections raised by the HC Registry, and dismissed a writ petition arising out of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.

The petitioners had alleged that an advocate was appointed as commissioner by the relevant magistrate under Section 14 of the Act to take over possession of the secured asset, but the commissioner, “acting in a fraudulent manner and/or in collusion with the secured creditor, had taken over possession thereof without adhering to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.”

The HC Registry, however, raised certain objections. It said the prayer in the writ petition needs revision, and sought clarification on why multiple relief has been claimed in a single prayer and why respondents 3, 4, and 9 were arrayed at all.

The objections were subsequently upheld by a division bench of the high court.

Appealing against the high court order, the petitioners contended that “to nip a proceeding, where fraud and collusion are alleged, in the bud on a mere technicality is unjust as it allows such allegations to be buried without an examination of its merits.”

Deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court said, “Law is well settled that when a suitor claims a larger or wider relief than what he is entitled to, his claim (be it a writ petition or a suit) cannot be dismissed by the court on that ground. Should the court find the suitor entitled to a lesser relief than the larger or wider relief claimed, there is no bar in granting such lesser relief.”

The Supreme Court added that the high court “ignored that the appellant is dominus litis (master of the suit). It is for him to decide who is to be joined as a party and who is not to be joined. 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, Civil Procedure Code. 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.”

Overruling the objections raised by the Registry and setting aside the high court order, the Supreme Court said, “We are pained to observe that there has been an abandonment of its judicial role by the high court.”