Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding with the original application, O.A.No.230 of 2004 pending on its file in so far as it relates to the petitioners are concerned. ) 1.00 Writ is not maintainable either to add or to strike out the names of defendants in a Civil dispute. There are alternative remedies and it is unfair to approach the Constitutional Courts increasing their pendency on one hand and ignoring the law of land on the other hand resulting the invitation to unnecessary controversies. 1.01 Joinder, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties in a case of civil nature must be considered by the Court or Tribunal of the 1st instance before whom the case is instituted as per Procedural Law. 1.02 Avoiding the original forum on some ground or other and approaching the Writ Courts seeking all sorts of remedies legal, illegal, justified, unjustified from lbottom to top is wholly impermissible. Unfortunately this trend is increasing day by day and it is the duty of the Registry of the Writ Courts to scrutinise and put final full stop the irregular practice at the threshold instead of dragging the cause till the fag end keeping the writs pending for years and finally dismissing on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is paining terribly, but if the Court allows the practice of entertaining writs against the law of procedure, it is as if the Court is accepting and permitting the illegality to be committed and continued and ultimately it becomes precedent. Though it is painful there is no other alternative except directing the parties to approach the appropriate forum and agitate their case. This firm decision will give clear signal to the party that if they choose wrong forum and if they proceed on wrong path they are bound to suffer and lose heavily. In the considered opinion of this Court that due to wrong procedure and practice adopted here and there the pendency in writ Courts are increasing enormously and it is disturbing the whole nation, in general and the justice system in particular and the society at large and unwanted and un-called comments like Indian Judicial System is collapsing or crumbling. It is not correct. It is not correct. The Indian Justice System will never fail and it is known to the whole world and it is tested by millions of masses of our holy land and proved successfully. It is a matter of great satisfaction to note that Indian Judiciary is raising beyond the dreams of the common for the cause of Justice and the field reality discloses that a man in the street have greatest faith in the judiciary and judiciary alone and not in the other organs of the state and whenever he is being victimised in the hands of other wings the judiciary is acting as custodian of justice. The errors if any at lower Court level are being cured at apex level. But the fact is the confidence of come over in the Court is unshaken. The citizen is expecting to act in accordance with law, hence the litigant has to follow the adjective Law and choose the correct forum and receive the reliefs. 1.03 If the writ courts encourage all sorts of litigation which are to be instituted in other statutory forums under the impression of sweeping powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, there is no end for vexatious litigation and a day will come sooner or later that all other Courts and Tribunals will have no work and the High Court will face floods bigger than Tsunami and it is not healthy to encourage. A copy of this order is directed to be marked to the Registrar Judicial of this Court for taking necessary instructions from My Lord the Honourable the Chief Justice for effective scrutiny of cases and give suitable directions in the Registry for proper scrutiny. 2.00 Now it is time to focus on the facts of this case. 2.01 The prayer of the petitioners is to prohibit the first respondent the 'Debt Recovery Tribunal', Chennai from proceeding against them in O.A.No.230 of 2004 pending on its file. 2.02 The sole and simple reason is that they are unnecessary parties to the litigation. 2.03 The two petitioners are the defendants No.7 and 8 in O.A.No.230 of 2004. 2.04 The Canara Bank, the second Respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.No.230 of 2004. 2.02 The sole and simple reason is that they are unnecessary parties to the litigation. 2.03 The two petitioners are the defendants No.7 and 8 in O.A.No.230 of 2004. 2.04 The Canara Bank, the second Respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.No.230 of 2004. 2.05 The contention of the petitioners is that they are unnecessary parties to the Original Application and they have been shown as parties for no reason and hence a direction may be given by this Court to the first Respondent not to proceed against them. 3.00 ARGUMENTS:- Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Aravamudan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.Sampath Kumar learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent, Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 4,5 and Mrs. Asha, learned counsel appearing for the 9th Respondent. 4.00 POINT:- 4.01 It is needless to verify the merits and demerits or truth or otherwise of the contents of Original Application and this Court need not go in to detail about the same as the short point for determination is: "Whether the petitioners can seek writ of prohibition for a direction to the first Respondent not to proceed against the petitioners?" 4.02 Admittedly, the petitioners are parties before the first Respondent in O.A.No.230 of 2004. The second Respondent filed the said Original Application for recovery of amount. It is said that the main contesting defendants are the third Respondent onwards and not the psetitioners. 4.03 The contention of the petitioners is that they are only Transport Operators and in the course of business they accept cargos from various shippers and hand over to the ship owners who are the liner operators and they have nothing to do with the debts or recovery of debts by any bank from its debtors. 4.04 ACT 51 OF 1993: The recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, known as Act 51 of 1993 is enacted by the Parliament in the 44th year of Republic India to provide for the establishment of Tribunals for expeditious adjudication for recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions and the matters connected with or incidental thereto. It came into force on 24th day of June, 1993. 4.05 The first Respondent is established under the Act. Prior to the enactment of the Act and establishment of the Tribunals, the Civil Courts in the country have jurisdiction to deal with those matters. It came into force on 24th day of June, 1993. 4.05 The first Respondent is established under the Act. Prior to the enactment of the Act and establishment of the Tribunals, the Civil Courts in the country have jurisdiction to deal with those matters. Since the Banks and Financial Institutions experienced considerable difficulties in recovering the debts and enforcement of securities charged with them, the Act came into existence and the Tribunals are established. 4.06 An application in the prescribed form is to be filed before the Tribunal under Rule 4 of Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedural Rules 1993 read with Section 19(1) of the Act. This application is to be preferred in the nature of a plaint. In the Civil Courts the Code of Civil Procedure is adopted for trying the suit. Similarly in the Debt Recovery Tribunals there are Debt Recovery Tribunals Procedural Rules (hereinafter referred to as rules). The procedure for filing application, the fees to be paid and the notices to the defendants and the filing of reply by the defendants and the enquiry etc., are dealt in detail under the procedure and rules. 4.07 Rule 12 of the Procedural Rules says that the defendant may file a reply to the application along with documents in a paper book form with the Registrar. This reply means either admitting the debt or disputing the debt or denying the liability and it includes the point of jurisdiction, maintainability and all other objections. 4.08 RULE 18:- Rule 18 of the said Procedural Rules is a very important Rule and it clearly says that the Tribunal may make such orders or to give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.(emphasis supplied). This is a crucial Rule and it gives wide powers to the Tribunals to make such orders to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. This is a crucial Rule and it gives wide powers to the Tribunals to make such orders to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. 4.09 SECTION 151 C.P.C.: At this stage it is necessary to note Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with inherent powers of the Court and it is as follows:- "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 4.10 It is known that the inherent power of the Court cannot override the express provision of law. In other words if there are no satisfactory provisions in dealing with the particular topic either express or by necessary implication the powers of the Court or Tribunal can be exercised as a matter of inherent power of the Court. 4.11 In State of Maharastra and others v. Admane Anita Moti and others //( AIR 1995 SC 350 )// it has been clearly observed that "the Courts and Tribunals have inherent powers to grant interim orders when such power is not provided under the Statute." It is also observed that "interim orders are to be granted by the Court as they are necessary to protect the interest of the parties and even where it is not provided in the statute." The Supreme Court has held that the Courts have inherent power to grant legal orders. 4.12 The inherent power to a Court is in addition to obligatory powers expressly conferred under the Code and under the Rule and that power will not be exercised if it is exercised because only converge with any of the power expressly conferred by other provisions of the Code. Whatever limitations are imposed by the constructions or the provisions Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure they do not control undoubted power of the Court conferred under Section 151 of the Code to make suitable order to prevent abuse of process of the Court. 4.13 This aspect has to be remembered by Civil Courts and Tribunals dealing with the Civil disputes. Thus the Civil Court can pass any order which is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 4.13 This aspect has to be remembered by Civil Courts and Tribunals dealing with the Civil disputes. Thus the Civil Court can pass any order which is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The same power which is identical is given under Rule 18 of the Procedural Rules of the Tribunal. 4.14 The Debt Recovery Tribunal Regulation of practice 1996 are also notified. Chapter VII of the Regulation deals with the Interlocutory Applications and it says Interlocutory Application means party instituted any such application before the Tribunal other than defined in Regulation No.3 sub-clause (2) and Regulation 25(c) says the reliefs and remedies which can be sought for through Interlocutory Application. Regulation 87 deals with impleading of necessary parties. This gives a power to the Tribunal to implead all necessary parties to the proceedings. Regulation 87(b) says that the Tribunal may suo mottu implead necessary party at any stage of proceedings for effective adjudication. 4.15 Thus, the combined reading of Rules and Regulations clarify that the Tribunal has a power suo mottu or on application either to implead a party or by invoking Rule 18 and Regulation 87 and the Tribunal may make such orders which are necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice and under this power the Tribunal can pass an order either to implead the necessary party or to delete the unnecessary party. In fact in the Appellate Tribunal Procedural Rules, Rule 15 says that who can join as a Respondent. 4.16. The procedure adopted in the Tribunal is almost identical to the procedure adopted under the Code of Civil Procedure. 4.17 Order I of the First Schedule to the C.P.C. deals with parties to the suit. Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. gives power to the Court to strike out or add parties and it can be at any stage. The person having no interest in a suit or application need not be impleaded as a party. 4.18 Who is necessary party depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is a Procedural aspect and not a constitutional matter to be decided by the Constitutional Courts and in fact this issue is to be decided by the concerned Court and not by the writ Courts. 4.18 Who is necessary party depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is a Procedural aspect and not a constitutional matter to be decided by the Constitutional Courts and in fact this issue is to be decided by the concerned Court and not by the writ Courts. As far as striking of the improper parties are concerned it should be done where the party is impleaded unnecessarily. 4.19 Who is the necessary party is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and this question is to be decided by the trial Court after verifying the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not the duty of the writ Court. The trial Court has to consider as to who is the necessary and proper party in a particular suit or application. 4.20 In the instant case, admittedly an Original Application is pending before the first Respondent Tribunal. That application is for recovery of amount and it is nothing but a suit normally to be instituted in a Civil Court and the power is vested with the Tribunal for its decision. Therefore, The petitioners should have sought the relief from the first Respondent rather than approaching this Court. 4.21 The contention of the petitioners is that there is a judgment of the High Court of Kerala reported in //Abdul Rasheed Vs. State Bank of Travancore// (III (2003) BC270, 2003(2)KLT557),// wherein it is held that there is no provision in the Act to try any point as a preliminary issue.// I have perused the above Judgment. The facts in the above case are that the Debt Recovery Tribunal stopped the cross-examination of A.W.1 who was in the box and directed the first defendant to file counter affidavit, if any on the P.A. filed on behalf of the applicant for on further issues. 4.22 The contention raised before the Kerala High Court is that Section 22 of the Act the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and under Rule 12(6) of the Rules that the Tribunal may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit. Hence the order of the Tribunal is illegal. Hence the order of the Tribunal is illegal. While dealing with Section 22 of the Act with regard to the powers of Tribunal, for discharging its functions and dealing with Rule 12 and Regulations 31 and 34, it is held that the Tribunal in stopping the recording of the evidence of A.W.1 is illegal and without jurisdiction. 4.23 The facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different and in fact there is no observation in the above judgment on adding or deleting the parties. 4.24 I do not intend to go in detail and discuss the meaning of issue in a Civil Suit and when issues are to be framed and how they are to be dealt and what are the main issues and what are preliminary issues. Reading of law the procedural and substantive law clarifies these matter and is unnecessary here. 4.25 Normally the issues are framed for just decision on the dispute. They are foundation for trial or the decision. 4.26 The word 'party' in a suit means litigant. In other words a party in this sense reference to a person who has part to play in the proceedings of the suit. In the absence of any contrary provision, the above meaning of the word is to be accepted. While any issue whether it is preliminary or final it is on the dispute and the Court has to determine the issues while adjudicating the cause. 4.27. Whereas the Court has to verify whether a particular party in a suit or litigation is the necessary party or not and by deciding whether a particular person is a necessary party or not. It is a matter of verification. If the Court is deciding on jurisdictional point either territorial or pecuniary or on the point of limitation it is touching upon the main dispute, hence it has to be treated as a preliminary issue, so also with regard to the parties. 4.28 In my considered opinion while deciding a particular fact vis-a-vis that a particular person is a necessary party or unnecessary party for the litigation it is the power of the Court to pass orders in order to either prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. 4.29 There is a clear Rule under Rule 18 of the Debt Recovery Procedural Rules 1993. 4.29 There is a clear Rule under Rule 18 of the Debt Recovery Procedural Rules 1993. Therefore, the petitioners have to approach the first Respondent and seek their redressal. 4.30 In the instant case the petitioners have an alternative remedy before the first Respondent itself. Without approaching the first Respondent the petitioners have approached this Court by way of writ. 5.00 DECISION: The writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners have to approach the Tribunal before whom they are the parties and seek relief and if they are aggrieved there is further procedure but not approaching this Court for writ of prohibition. RESULT:- In the above circumstances the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.26892 of 2005 is closed.