Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mukund Maheswar – Appellant
Versus
Axis Bank Ltd. – Respondent
The court emphasized that when a party files a legal claim, they must clearly specify the relief they are seeking. If the party claims a broader or more extensive relief than they are actually entitled to, the court should not dismiss the case solely on that basis. Conversely, if the court determines that the party is entitled to a lesser relief than what has been claimed, there is no obstacle to granting that lesser relief. However, the court cannot grant a relief that is larger or broader than what has been requested in the pleadings.
It was also noted that rejecting a petition because multiple reliefs are included in a single prayer is unprecedented. If the court believes that the reliefs should have been claimed separately, it could have allowed for a correction or amendment of the prayer clause. The court may also adjust the relief without requiring an amendment if appropriate, which is consistent with established principles of judicial procedure.
Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that the petitioner has the right to decide who should be joined as parties to the case; this is within their control. The court's registry cannot interfere in this decision or question why certain parties have been included as respondents. If unnecessary parties have been joined with malicious intent or to cause harassment, the court has the authority to identify and remove such parties.
Ultimately, the court criticized the lower court for abandoning its judicial responsibilities by dismissing the petition on technical grounds without properly examining the merits of the case. As a result, the higher court set aside the order of dismissal, allowing the petition to be revived and considered afresh by a different bench. The case was to be refiled before the Chief Justice for reassignment, ensuring it would be heard by a different judicial panel than the one that originally dismissed it.
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 thi
(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 ....
The High Court cannot intervene in legitimate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act.
A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if effective statutory remedies exist, requiring proper reasoning in interim orders issued by the court.
The court established that compliance with statutory provisions is essential in possession proceedings under the Securitisation Act, and alternative remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial....
The High Court affirmed that the adequate remedy under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued before seeking judicial intervention, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory options.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
