Sri Mukund Maheswar v. Axis Bank Ltd 2026 INSC 84 - Writ Petition - Registry Objection

Constitution of India - Article 226 ; Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Practice and Procedure - Registry - It is for petitioner 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, 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. (Para 11) [Context: In this case, the High Court had upheld the registry objections relating to the form of the prayer and the array of parties in the writ petition - Supreme Court set aside the HC order]

Constitution of India - Article 226 ; Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 7, 11- Order VI Rule 17 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 -A court cannot grant a larger or wider relief to the suitor than that claimed by him - The grounds on the existence of which rejection of a plaint is permissible are traceable to Order VII Rule 11, CPC whereas dismissal of a writ petition at the threshold is permissible on several grounds raised as objections to maintainability - rejection of a writ petition on the ground that multiple relief has been claimed in a single prayer is, perhaps, unprecedented. Even, moulding of relief without insisting on amendment of the prayer clause, should a case be set up therefor, is not unknown to writ jurisprudence. (Para 10)

Legal maxim -“Fraus omnia corrumpit” - Fraud unravels everything. (Para 7)

Case Info

Case Information


Case name and neutral citation:Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 84


Coram:Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma


Judgment date:23 January 2026 (New Delhi)

Statutes / laws referred

  • Constitution of India – Article 226
  • Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – generally, including Section 14
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
    • Order VII Rule 7 (relief to be specifically stated)
    • Order VII Rule 11 (rejection of plaint)
    • Order VI Rule 17 (amendment of pleadings)
    • Order I Rule 10 (addition/deletion of parties)

Brief summary


The appellants, borrowers under the SARFAESI Act, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court alleging that an advocate commissioner appointed under Section 14 fraudulently took possession of the secured asset in collusion with the secured creditor. The High Court rejected the writ petition at the threshold by upholding registry objections relating to the form of the prayer and the array of parties, and directed return of papers, which the Supreme Court found to be an abdication of judicial duty, especially in a case alleging fraud where the maxim “fraus omnia corrumpit” applies. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, overruled the registry objections, directed that the writ petition be registered as defect‑free and placed before a different Division Bench, and clarified that issues like multiplicity or form of prayers and joinder of parties are matters for judicial handling (including amendment/moulding of relief), not grounds for rejection at the registry stage.