IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Relief claimed ought to be specifically stated – When 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 court on that ground.
(2) Writ Petition – Necessary party – Appellant is dominus litis – 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 exclusive domain of Judiciary and seek clarification as to why a particular party has been joined as a respondent.

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Upon the appellants presenting a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, W.P. (SR). No.21402 of 2025 the Registry of the High Court of Telangana [High Court] raised certain objections which were to the effect that (i) the prayer in the writ petition needs revision; (ii) it needs to be clarified as to why (a) multiple relief has been claimed in a single prayer and (b) respondents 3, 4 and 9 were arrayed as respondents; and (iii) since the writ petition arises out of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Act] “DB set is to be filed in IA Petition”.

4. The writ petition of the appellants was then placed before a Division Bench of the High Court with these objections, on 2nd July, 2025. The High Court upon hearing learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition agreed with the office objections. While sustaining the office objections, the writ petition stood rejected and the Registry was directed to return the papers to counsel who had appeared before the Division Bench.

5. The order dated 2nd July, 2025 of rejection of the writ petition is assailed in this appeal.

6. Appellants are “borrower” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. In their writ petition, the appellants 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; however, such 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.

7. In a situation such as this, where the high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court had been invoked by the appellants alleging fraud and collusion, the High Court erred in not bearing in mind the maxim “fraus omnia corrumpit” which translates to “fraud unravels everything”. 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.

8. Even otherwise, we find no merit in the office objections which the High Court erroneously sustained.

9. Requirement of Order VII Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] is that relief claimed ought to be specifically stated. It is, therefore, all about comprehension as to what relief the petitioner/plaintiff [suitor] urges the court to grant to him. Having read the prayer clauses, there can be no doubt as to the relief that the appellants sought from the High Court. Whether or not they are entitled thereto is altogether a different matter, which would come up for consideration once the High Court, in its discretion, decides to entertain the writ petition.

10. 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. It is equally well settled that 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, which we need not dilate here; however, rejection of a writ petition on the ground that multiple relief has been claimed in a single prayer is, perhaps, unprecedented. Be that as it may, even if multiple relief in a single prayer has been claimed and if at all the High Court was of the view that relief should have been claimed separately, liberty to that extent by way of a correction of the prayer clause could have been granted. Further, should t