Registry Cannot Question Judicial Exclusive Decisions

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2026) held that the Registry cannot question a petitioner's decision to implead particular parties as respondents, emphasizing that such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the judiciary. 

What was the Background of Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a SARFAESI dispute. 
• The petitioner alleged fraudulent and collusive conduct by a court-appointed Commissioner in taking possession of a secured asset in violation of the SARFAESI Act and rules. 
• The Telangana High Court Registry raised objections to the prayer clause and the array of parties impleaded in the petition. 
• The Division Bench of the High Court, agreeing with the Registry's objections, rejected the writ petition and directed the return of the papers. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to reject the petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the 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 emphasized that the petitioner, being dominus litis (master of the suit), is empowered to decide who is to be joined as a party and who is not. 
• The Court observed that unnecessary parties could be deleted by the High Court referring to principles flowing from Order I Rule 10, CPC, and that if any party has been mischievously joined, it is open to the High Court to deal with the situation appropriately on the judicial side. 
• The Court expressed that "We are pained to observe that there has been an abandonment of its judicial role by the High Court", pointing out the complacency on the High Court's part in failing to exercise its judicial discretion. 

Court's Directions: 

• The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was revived before the High Court. 
• The objections raised by the Registry stand overruled, and consequently, the impugned order was set aside. 
• This resulted in the revival of the writ petition, which shall be duly registered and marked as defect-free. 
• The High Court's Chief Justice was directed to list the petition before a Division Bench other than the bench from which the impugned order arose. 
• The new bench shall hear the matter in accordance with law. 

What is the Doctrine of Dominus Litis? 

About:  

• The Doctrine of Dominus Litis, a Latin term, translates to “Master of the Lawsuit”. 
• Originating from the principles of civil procedure, it establishes the party who has control over the litigation process. 
• The Doctrine of Dominus Litis grants the plaintiff the right to choose suit parties, yet this right is not absolute, subject to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)'s Order 1, Rule 10.  
• The court may add/remove parties at its discretion, ensuring all necessary parties are present for a comprehensive resolution. 
• The court assesses impleaded parties' direct interest and their contribution to resolving the dispute, retaining discretion to accept or reject claims based on circumstances; no one has an automatic right to be impleaded. 

Purpose of Doctrine of Dominus Litis: 

• "Dominus Litis" refers to the person who owns or controls a legal suit and holds a genuine interest in its outcome.  
  • This individual stands to gain from a favorable judgment or bear the consequences of an unfavorable one.  
• The doctrine is applied to someone who, though not an original party, intervenes and assumes control over one side of the case, being treated as a liable party by the court.  
• The court's power under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC governs the addition of parties, emphasizing that the plaintiff, as the "dominus litis," cannot be compelled to litigate against an undesired party.  
• However, the court, in ensuring a comprehensive resolution, may order the inclusion of necessary parties even without a formal application.  
• The application of the theory of Dominus Litis should be cautious, and the court's authority to add parties is extensive under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC. 

Applicability and Non- Applicability of Doctrine of Dominus Litis: 

• Applicability: 
  • Section 92 CPC, Proceedings: 
    • The court has the authority to include a party as a defendant in a suit under Section 92 of CPC, similar to any other lawsuit.  
    • The right to sue is governed by Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 
  • Specific Performance Suit: 
    • The plaintiff initiating a specific performance suit for a sale contract is considered Dominus Litis and cannot be compelled to involve parties against whom they do not wish to litigate, unless compelled by legal requirements. 
• Non-Applicability: 
  • Partition Suit: 
    • In a partition suit, the strict application of the principle of Dominus Litis is not applicable because both the plaintiff and defendants are sharers. 
  • Execution Petition: 
    • In the case of Changanti Lakhmi Rajyam and others v. Kolla Rama Rao (1998) it was held that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is relevant to suits and appeals but does not apply to execution proceedings.  
• Limited Applicability 
  • Cause of Action: 
    • In Mohannakumaran Nair v. Vijayakumaran Nair (2008), Supreme Court clarified that the application of the doctrine of Dominus Litis is limited to causes of action falling within Sections 15 to 18 of the CPC.