9th September 2016

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

TOPIC: INHERENT POWER OF COURT UNDER SECTION

151 OF CPC

Submitted to: Neha Sharma

Submitted by: Amber Siddiqui

Roll. No. - BA.LLB.2014 36

1
 9th September 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .. 2
2. HYPOTHESIS3
3. INTRODUCTION..3
4. PRINCIPLE6
5. NATURE AND SCOPE OF SECTION 151..6
6. INHERENT POWER 7
7. ENDS OF JUSTICE..8
8. TO PREVENT ABUSE OF POWER9
9. APPICATION OF SECTION 151.10
10. WHEN INHERENT POWER CAN BE INVOKED16
11. WHEN INHERENT POWER CANNOT BE INVOKED18
12. LIMITATION19
13. CONCLUSION..19
14. BIBLIOGRAPHY .20

2
 9th September 2016

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

THE INHERENT POWER OF COURT

There exists an age-old and well-established principle that every court has
power to act ex debito justitiae to do that real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone it exists. Also, it has an inherent duty to prevent
abuse of the existing processes of the court..
By Ashish kumar

Inherent Powers of the Court: When Can They be Invoked?

Theres this 1983 judgment of the Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of In Re Shri
Ambica Mills which sets out the limits of Section 151 in great detail and I think its a must
read for those who intend to understand the CPC better By J.Sai Deepak

Inherent power of Civil Court U/S 151 of Code of Civil Procedure

A procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction or to defeat the very
object which is sought to be achieved. A procedural law is always subservient to the
substantive law. Nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by
a substantive law and nothing can be taken away by the procedural law what is given by the
substantive law. By Neeraj Kumar

3
 9th September 2016

HYPOTHESIS

Whether the powers so expressed under section 151 are in addition or

complementary to powers conferred by the code and whether they can override the
other provisions of the code or it is exercised in ex debito justitiae (as a matter of
right) as discretionary power of court of law.

INTRODUCTION

There exists an age-old and entrenched rule that each court has power to act ex debito
justitiae to do that genuine and generous equity for the organization of which alone it
exists. Additionally, it has an inalienable obligation to avert misuse of the current
procedures of the court.Courts are set up to redress to the plethora of issues that are
bound to crop up when people live together in a country as vast as ours. Yet, no
matter how well and minutely codified our laws may be, it is not humanly possible to
account for every eventuality and in order to not let this very obvious tautology
interfere with the meting out of justice efficiently and effectively, the Code of Civil
Procedure, which regulates the procedural aspect of all civil litigation, has been
provided with the dimension of inherent powers of the court1.

Section 148 to 153 provide for the said inherent powers, which come to the rescue in
case of any unforeseen circumstances. They are complementary to the powers
otherwise specifically conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure and the court is free
to exercise them for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the
court by virtue of an obligation to provide justice (ex debitio justitae) in the absence
of express provisions of the Code.2

1
Pradeem Kumar, Inherent power of court,Lawteacher,(Sept
2,2016,21:53),http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/inherent-powers-of-the-court-co
nstitutional-law-essay.php
2
Hariran kumar, Inherent power of court under Cpc, Lawctopus (sept.2,2016,22:02),
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/inherent-powers-court-cpc/

4
 9th September 2016

.Section 148 states that when any period is fixed or granted by the court for the doing
of any act, the court has the power to extend the said period even if it has expired.

Section 149 allows the court to allow a party to make up the deficiency of court-fees
payable on a plaint, memorandum of appeal etc., even after the expiry of the
limitation prescribed for the filing of such suit or appeal.

Section 150 talks of transfer of business of one court to another, wherein the court
which receives the said business shall have the same powers and duties as the court
from which the business is transferred.

Section 151 talks about the inherent powers of the court and says that nothing in the
code shall limit the power of the court to make any order that will necessarily for the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

The section151 itself does not lay down any guideline when to resort to inherent
powers and when not except for using the two key phrases that is Ends of Justice
and Abuse of process of Court the Courts often were led astray and lot of misuse
of these powers occurred3.

PRINCIPLE

In the cases where the C.P.C does not deal with, the Court will exercise its inherent
power to do justice. If there are specific provision of the C.P.C dealing with the
specific issue and they expressly or by basic implication, then the inherent powers of
the Court cannot be invoked as inherent powers itself means those which are not
specified in C.P.C.
The section confers on the judges to make such orders that may be necessary to make
justice achievable. The Power can be invoked to support the provisions of the code
but not to override or evade other express provisions as C.P.C. is the basic law which
governs the functioning of the courts.

3
Id.

5
 9th September 2016

NATURE AND SCOPE OF SECTION 151

Bare reading of section:-
Saving of inherent powers of the court.- 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
This is the first provision in CPC that mentions about the inherent power of court.
There are two major objectives the court must take into consideration while
exercising inherent powers recognized under S. 151. Firstly, the powers are to be
exercised only for the ends of justice and secondly, to prevent abuse of process of the
court. The powers are not to be exercised
when prohibited or excluded by the Code or other statutes as well as in situations
when there exist specific provisions in the Code applicable to the litigation at hand4.

INHERENT POWER

The word Inherent is very wide in itself. It means existing and in separable from
something, a permanent attribute or quality, an essential element, something intrinsic,
or essential, vested in or attached to a person or office as a right of privilege.5 Hence,
inherent powers are such powers which are inalienable from courts and may be
exercised by a court to do full and complete justice between the parties before it.

Now, coming to the meaning of the word power, the meaning drawn out in the
case of Seth Lookasan Sethiya v. Ivan E John6, is that power means authority,
whether any discretion is left or not and whether any direction is imperative or
directory relates to the manner and exercise of the power and not to the basic
ingredient of the authority itself. Without authority, a valid act cannot be done
irrespective of whether the act is discretionary on the part of the doer of the act,
or he is bound to do it. In both situations, he must have authority.

4
See inherent power of court,supra note 2.
5
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2002).
6
AIR 1975 ALL 113 at pg 121; P Ramanatha Aiyar, Concise Law Dictionary, 3rd Edn, 2009, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur

6
 9th September 2016

ENDS OF JUSTICE

In the case of Debendranath v. Satya Bala Dass7, the phrase ends of justice was
explained and it was held that ends of justice are solemn words and not mere polite
expression in juristic methodology and justice is the pursuit and end of all law. But
these words do not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice according to
statutes and laws of the land.

Thus this cause of use of inherent powers indicates that the court may exercise the
said powers in order for substantive justice to prevail. The Court is allowed to
exercise these powers in instances like the following:

To recall its own orders and correct its mistakes, as was done in Keshardeo v.
Radha Kissen8,
To pass an injunction in a case not covered by Order 39, as was seen
in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Sheth Harilal9,
To set aside an ex parte order passed against the party, as in Martin Burn
Ltd. V. R. N. Banerjee10
To add, delete or transpose any party to a suit Salia Bala Dassi v. Nirmala
Sundari Dassi11

TO PREVENT ABUSE OF POWER

According to Mulla the words abuse of process of courts, is defined as follows:
Abuse of process of court, is the malicious and improper use of some regular legal
proceedings to obtain an unfair advantage over an opponent. Nothing short of
obvious fraud on the part of a debtor would render him liable to have his petition for
insolvency dismissed on the grounds of abuse of process of court.The term is

7
AIR 1950 Cal 217 273
8
AIR 1953 SCR 136
9
AIR 1962 SC 527
10
AIR 1958 SC 79
11
AIR 1958 SC 394

7
 9th September 2016

generally used in connection with action for using some process of court maliciously
to the injury of another person12.

The High Court has inherent power under S.151, under Letters patent, and under Art.
215 of the Constitution to prevent the abuse of its powers.It is an abuse of the process
of the court when the facts germane to the issue were either not disclosed to the court
or were misstated. However, inaccurate facts must be such as to enable the plaintiff
to obtain the relief which he would not have gotten had he disclosed the correct facts.
But inaccuracies which did not have such a result would not be sufficient to dismiss
the cause13.

Where the court is bound to grant an application, and has no discretion to refuse it, it
has no power to dismiss it on so treacherous a ground of decision, as an abuse of the
process of the court. Also, where a decree of the first appellate court has become
final, by its not having been interfered with in the second appeal, an application for
stay of its execution cannot be granted on the ground, either of abuse of process of
court or in the interest of justice, merely because a review application against such a
decree is pending.

12
See Inherent power of court, supra note 1.
13
id

8
 9th September 2016

APPLICATION OF SECTION 151 BY COURT OF LAW IN

CASES

Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ex ... vs Unknown

Theres this 1983 judgment of the Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of In
Re Shri Ambica Mills14 which sets out the limits of Section 151 in great detail. The
factual matrix is interesting and helps one understand the reasons for decisions taken
by counsels and how the Court sees through some of them.

Facts
In this case, an application was made under Section 151 of the CPC read with Rule 9
of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 invoking the inherent powers of the Court to
have certain remarks expunged from the judgment of the same Court in an earlier
company petition.

The applicants were the managing directors of the company Shri Ambica Mills. The
earlier company petition was moved by the company under Section 101 of the
Companies Act to get an order confirming the reduction in its equity share capital.
The presence of paid-up capital which exceeded the needs of the company was cited
as the reason for the decision to reduce the share capital. To this end, a resolution
with three quarters majority had been passed by the shareholders of the company.

However, this petition was opposed by a certain group of shareholders whose

objection to the reduction in the share capital was that the entire scheme was a
humbug, aimed at serving the private interests of the 3 managing directors (MDs),
who were brothers. The company petition was accordingly dismissed relying on the
said objections.

Prior to moving the 151 application by the MDs, the company had already preferred
an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which had been admitted too.

14
1986 59 CompCas 368 Guj

9
 9th September 2016

The MDs i.e. applicants in the instant case, too had filed for a stay order on the
decision of the Single Judge of the HC dismissing the company petition.

Subsequent to the application for a stay order, the 151 application was filed to seek
expungement of certain remarks in the earlier order made against the MDs. The
contention of the MDs was that they were never given the opportunity of being heard
or defending themselves in the earlier petition and consequently, such remarks were
unwarranted and unnecessary for the purpose of arriving at a decision in the earlier
petition.

Discussion
The Court first delved into the issue of maintainability of the 151 application read
with Rule 9 of the Company Rules. (Rule 9 too deals with inherent powers of the
Court, so it stands on par with s.151 of the CPC.)

The Court first observed that:

1. S.151 is not to be exercised as a substantive power for it is procedural and
2. Use of inherent powers under s.151 cannot have the object or effect of going
against the provisions of the Code, express and implied.

These observations were paraphrased from the celebrated decision of Manohar

Lal v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Hira Lal Seth (AIR 1962 SC 527). I remember this
decision particularly well thanks to the booming voice of Barrister Bimol K.
Chatterjee (popularly known as BKC) who taught us the fundamentals of the CPC in
Law School.

In this case, the Honble Supreme Court observed with clarity that the reason that
s.151 should not be interpreted to contravene the provisions of the CPC was not
because the latter controlled the former, but because the other provisions reflected the
express will of the Legislature and in its wisdom, served the interests of justice in the
circumstances envisaged.

10
 9th September 2016

Simply put, to use s.151 to read down the other express provisions would go against
the cardinal principle of interpretation of statues- to respect and to give effect to the
will of the Legislature.

The Court then considered other alternatives which the MDs could have preferred
instead of a 151 application. Order 20, Rule 3 accordingly was given some thought;
Rule 3 of Order 20 provides for addition to or alteration of the judgment either under
Section 152 or through a review under Section 114 read with Order 47.

To this the counsel for the MDs clarified that he had no intention of invoking the
review powers of the Court. The Court contended that if review was not sought, and
if an application under 152 does not lie since the case was not that of an accidental
slip or arithmetic error, then an application under 151 wouldnt lie either since the
impugned remarks were material to the Courts findings in the earlier petition.

The Court compared s.151 to s.561 of the CrpC and said that remarks which are
material to the Courts analysis cannot be sought to be expunged. Expungement,
according to the Court, is possible only if sweeping observations, which are
irrelevant to the case, are made by the Court. Such expungement may be sought by
parties to the case or a stranger who has been named by the Court in its remarks.

In this case, since the very allegation against the Company was that the whole
scheme of reduction of paid-up capital was a sham to feather the nests of the MDs, it
was inevitable for the Court to discuss the conduct of the MDs to decide the case on
merits.

Going a step further, the Court discussed certain other alternatives as well; the Court
observed that since strangers to a case could not avail of the review option, they
could resort to a writ under Article 226 wherein the Court could justifiably exercise
powers of review.

In short, what the Court was alluding to was that the 151 application was ruse on the
part of the MDs since a review was not possible (as an appeal had already been

11
 9th September 2016

preferred) and an application under 152 wouldnt lie here since the case was not that
of an accidental error.

In light of the Courts observations on s.151, theres another question which I feel
must be asked. Section 151 may not be used to contravene other express provisions,
but can it be used to supplement them? The answer is in the affirmative since quite a
few applications which we move before the Court (like the ones under Order 13) are
usually read with Section 151 so as to invoke the powers of the Court if express
provisions, although invoked, do not adequately provide for suitable remedies.

K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy15

Facts
In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance alleging that defendant
had entered into registered agreement of sale deed. He contented that he had paid
money in advanced and defendant had agreed to execute a sale deed. Plaintiff negate
such contention and said he went to have a loan from plaintiff and plaintiff asked to
register the sale agreement and execute some blank paper and stamp for the security
of money. So defendant contended that no suit for specific performance lies. The
defendant application was filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
with a prayer to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further cross-examination of
Plaintiff and the attesting witness.The defendant wanted to cross-examine the
witnesses with reference to the admissions made during some conversations,
recorded on a compact disc (an electronic record). The plaintiff resisted the said
applications. He denied any such conversations or admissions. He alleged that the
recordings were created by the appellant with the help of mimicry specialists and
Ponnuswamy, Shiva and Saravana Kumar. He contended that the application was a
dilatory tactic to drag on the proceedings.

15
K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275

12
 9th September 2016

ISSUES

Whether the court is entitle under section 151 of cpc to re open the evidence and to
conduct the process of re-examination of a particular case.

Discussion

The Honble Supreme Court upheld that Section 151 of the Code recognizes the
discretionary power inherited by every court as a necessary corollary for rendering
justice in accordance with law, to do what is right and undo what is wrong. The
Court summarized the scope of Section 151 of the CPC as follows:
(a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which confers any power or jurisdiction
on courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power of every court for rendering
justice in accordance with law, to do what is `right and undo what is `wrong, that is,
to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its
process.
(b) The provisions of the Code are not exhaustive; section 151 says that if the Code
does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent
power can be used by the court to deal with such situation, to achieve the ends of
justice, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
(c) A Court has no power to do things which is prohibited by law or the Code, in the
exercise of its inherent powers. The court cannot make use of the special provisions
of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is expressly provided in
the Code.
(d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically
conferred, a court is free to exercise them and the court should exercise it in a way
that it should not be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code.
(e) While exercising the inherent power, there is no such legislative guidance to deal
with those special situations of the case and so the exercise of power depends upon
the discretion and wisdom of the court, and also upon the facts and circumstances of
the case. So, such consequential situation should not however be treated as a carte
blanche to grant any relief.

13
 9th September 2016

(f) The power under section 151 will have to be used with care, only where it is
absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter or
when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted or when such exercise is to
meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.

DECISION

The power under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be
used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of
various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found
to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist
the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and
the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons,
the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh
evidence.

WHEN INHERENT POWER CAN BE INVOKED

1. It is true that O.39 R.2A of the code deals with consequences of disobedience or
breach of injunction, but that does not mean that the court below was not
competent to provide police protection in exercise of its inherent powers U/s 151
of the code. Civil revision petition dismissed.
2. While exercising inherent powers the court can expunge defamatory remarks in
the will. It has been well settled by now because if the person alleged to be
defamed will be left with no recourse for redressal as person who had made the
libelous or scandalous or defamatory statement has since died and no civil or
criminal proceedings can be initiated against such a person. Also the law does
not perceive a situation where a person is rendered remediless.
3. Power of restitution not confined to section 144, court can order restitution in
exercise of its inherent powers.
4. Defendants forcibly dispossessed plaintiff in violation of interim injunction,
passing of order of mandatory injunction under sec.151 for restoration of
possession to the plaintiff proper.

14
 9th September 2016

5. Suits or proceedings having different causes of action can be consolidated under

inherent powers without consent of parties, question of limitation remained
unaffected.
6. Court can set aside its order of rejection of plaint and in case it is rejected on the
ground of failure to pay the deficit court fee the court can restore the plaint u/s
151.
7. Execution petition is dismissed for failure to take steps, sec.151 applies to
revoke order of dismissal and O.21 R.106 is no bar. Dismissal for default on the
date of hearing O.21 R.106 applies.
8. There is nothing in order 39 of the code which expressly or by necessary
implication precludes the exercise of inherent power of the court under sec.151
and it is open to the court to pass a suitable consequential order under section
151 as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of
the court.
9. The court has power to grant interim relief considering the merit of each case
and such relief is subject to adjustment upon final determination in the suit. Such
interim relief is also granted to avoid abuse of process of court.
10. Order passed by mistake may be corrected by the same court and the court can
do it even apart from sec.151. Court can set aside the decree under its inherent
powers after passing it where it is a nullity or passed due to mistake by the court.
11. If due to absence of advocate no cross examination is made and later advocate
appears and prays for cross examination, the prayer can be granted under
inherent powers.
12. Under section 151 the jurisdiction to stay an otherwise competent suit is to be
sparingly exercised and only for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of
process of court and thus when all the evidence is available in D place a suit in C
can be stayed notwithstanding competence of latter court for the ends of justice.
13. Where the cause of action not barred on the day on which restoration application
was filed, the suit is liable to be restore16.

16
Vinayak dhotre, Inherent power of court under section 151 of cpc, lawyersclubindia,(sept
4,2016,11:09),http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/INHERENT-POWERS-OF-CIVIL-COURT-U-S-151-OF-COD
E-OF-CIVIL-PROC-3071.asp

15
 9th September 2016

INHERENT POWER WHEN NOT INVOKED:-

When there is no case of grant of a particular relief under a particular statute,

power under sec.151 need not be exercised. Where in a case claiming
maintenance by a Hindu woman married to a Hindu Male having a living lawful
wedded wife, it cannot be granted U/s 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the
marriage being void under section 5(1) thereof, and such reliefs cannot be
granted by invoking sec.151.
A court cannot override the express provision of law but if there is no express
provision in the statute, then the apex court has held that the court can exercise
its power in a suitable case. Hence as per the judgment in the case of Ram Chand
& Sons Sugar Mills (p) Ltd. v. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava17, the power u/s 151
cannot be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with or comes into conflict with
any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other
provisions of the code.
Inherent powers can be exercised when no other remedy is available. Sec.151
hence cannot be invoked as substitute for appeal, revision or review. In exercise
of inherent powers however, the court cannot override general principle of law. It
could only be for securing ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of court.
The inherent powers of the court u/s 151 also cannot be invoked to grant a relief
beyond scope of law. For instance if in an auction proceedings once the law has
fixed 15 days time to deposit the full amount of purchase money in the court,
such period cannot be extended u/s 15118

LIMITATIONS

It can be clearly seen that the inherent powers of the court are extensively wide and
residuary in nature. Though, one cannot rule out the fact that the same inherent
powers can be exercised ex debitojustitae only in the absence of express provisions in
the code.[xvi] The restrictions on the inherent powers are not there because they are
controlled by the provisions of the Code, but because of the fact that it shall be
presumed that the procedure provided by the legislature is dictated by ends of justice.

17
See AIR 1966 SC 1899
18
See Inherent power of court, supra Note 16.

16
 9th September 2016

CONCLUSION
Through the doctrinal research and the analytical approach, it can be safely deduced
that Section 151 CPC is not a substantive provision. Sections 148-153A bestow the
courts with very wide and extensive powers to minimize litigation, avoid multiplicity
of proceedings and render full and complete justice between the parties before them.
Sec 151 saves inherent power of the court , which are supposed to be exercised ex
debitojustitae, i.e., in the interest of the justice. These powers are not conferred upon
the court. In the end, one has to look upto the judgment of J. Subbarao who made a
very poignant observation in the case of Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Ltd. V.
Kanhayalal Bhargava.
Whatever limitations are imposed by construction of the provisions of Section 151
of the Code, they do not control the undoubted power of this court conferred under
section 151 of the Code to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process
of the court.

17
 9th September 2016

BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/inherent-powers-of
-the-court-constitutional-law-essay.php
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/INHERENT-POWERS-OF-CIVIL-C
OURT-U-S-151-OF-CODE-OF-CIVIL-PROC-3071.asp
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1126109/
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/inherent-powers-court-cpc/
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/inherent-powers-court-cpc-2/

18