Part-I
Introduction
The genesis of this blog lies in a lecture that I had the privilege of delivering to trainee judges at the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy a few months ago on the scope and exercise of the inherent powers of civil courts under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While the statutory provision has been the subject of extensive judicial exposition, the real challenge often lies not in understanding its theoretical contours but in determining when its invocation is truly warranted in the day-to-day administration of justice. This blog, therefore, consciously departs from a purely doctrinal discussion. Instead, it examines the practical dilemmas that courts frequently encounter—situations where the exercise of inherent powers becomes indispensable to prevent injustice or abuse of process, as well as those where judicial restraint is equally imperative because the field is already occupied by an express statutory provision. The endeavor is to present Section 151 not merely as a residual source of judicial authority, but as a carefully calibrated tool whose legitimacy depends as much on the wisdom to refrain from exercising it as on the courage to invoke it when justice so demands.
Bare Reading of the provision
Section 151 is a kind of saving clause, where the inherent powers save by this section can be used to secure the ends of justice.
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down:
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.”
Section 151 does not confer power on the Court, it only acknowledges the inherent powers of the Court by virtue of its being a judicial forum to dispense justice.
What are inherent powers
Inherent powers of the court are generally those powers which are expressly not provided by the Code of Civil Procedure but conferred on the Court in addition to those which are expressly provides by the Code. The Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law and provided for the procedure to be adopted by Civil Courts while administering justice between the parties. But it is not possible by any enactment or law or Act to provide the provisions for all emerging situations. So some complementary powers are conferred upon the courts to deal with the emerging situation of a particular nature and the Court is free to exercise them for administering justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
These powers can be exercised ex debitio justitiae in the absence of express provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. Inherent powers may be exercised ex debito justitiae in those cases, where there is no express provision in the Code. The said power cannot be exercised in contravention or in conflict of or ignoring express and specific provision of law. (Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree, AIR 2009 SC 285)
In case of Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila, MANU/SC/0192/1964 : AIR 1965 SC 364: (1964) 66 Bom LR 681: (1964) 7 SCR 267 while expressing its view on the nature of inherent powers of the court, the Apex Court observed that –“the Code of Civil Procedure is a special piece of legislation to deal with procedural situations of proceeding of trials of civil nature. Under the Code itself, some hidden powers are conformed on the courts according to the emerging situations during the proceedings and courts can exercise them as ex debitiae justitiae in the absence of expressed provisions. But where there are express provisions itself in the Code, the Courts are barred to invoke such powers.” A court cannot act under the shelter of such powers arbitrarily but is supposed to invoke its judicial mind before granting relief to the applicant.
When it can be exercised
The inherent powers of the Court under section 151 can be exercised:–
(1) For ends of justice.–
The following two rules relating to ends of justice may be noted:
(a) It is in the ends of justice that injury should be remedied and needless expenses and inconvenience to parties be avoided.
(b) It will not be in the ends of justice to exercise inherent powers if it would interfere with the interest of third party or cause mischief or in justice.
(2) To prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
The power under this head or section 151 can also be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of a court. Such abuse may be committed by a court or by a party. The basic principle of section 151 is that, the injustice, if any, so done to the party must be remedied on the basis of the doctrine actus curae neminem gravabit.
So abuse of process whether it is by way of instituting vexatious, obstructive or dilatory tactics, or by encouraging multiplicity of litigations, or by practising fraud on the Court, or by trying to secure an undue advantage over the opposite party, the Court while applying its judicial mind may grant some relief to the applicant, in the interest of justice.
Limitations on Inherent Powers
Since the section 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 occurred.
“Inherent jurisdiction must be exercised, subject to the rule that, if the Code does contain specific provisions, which could meet the necessities of the case in question, such provisions should be followed, and the inherent jurisdiction must not be invoked. Such provisions need not be express, they may be implied, or even implicit, from the very nature of the provisions made for the contingencies to which they relate. Accordingly, where certain orders are passed in the suit, and the suit is thereafter disposed off, an application under this section, challenging those orders as being without jurisdiction, and for the restoration of the suit, is incompetent, there being a specific remedy under the Code, by way of an appeal or a review. It is only when there is no clear provision in the Code, that inherent jurisdiction can be invoked. In such a case, the Court may devise a procedure, which would be permissible under the law, for achieving the ends of justice
It is beyond any doubt that inherent powers of the Courts are of wide amplitude and are exercised by the concerned court at relevant stage to prevent the abuse of system and to cause proper justice to the parties, but, equally true is that these inherent powers can be exercises ex debitio justitiae, is only in the absence of express provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also applying judicial mind looking into the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
In case of Manohar Lal v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hira Lal, MANU/SC/0056/1961: AIR 1962 SC 527: (1962) Supp 1 SCR 450, it was observed that the restrictions on the inherent powers are not because they are controlled by the provisions of the Code, but because it should be presumed that the procedure provided by the legislature is dictated by the interests of justice.
So on the basis of precedents discussed we can conclude that:
(i) The Court has no inherent power to do what is prohibited (expressly or impliedly) by the Code so as to defeat the statutory provisions of the law of the land. Section 151 does not invest the Court with jurisdiction over the matters which are excluded from its cognizance.
(ii) Where specific provisions are contained in regard to particular issue(s) under the Code, the Court has no power to make such provision(s) meaningless and to devise its own procedure.
(iii) The inherent power is not to be exercised under the applicant has remedy provided elsewhere in the Code but has neglected himself. Equity aids the vigilant not the indolent. Further, where the applicant did not came to court with clean hands and has suppressed the facts, the inherent power is not to be exercised.
(iv) The inherent power of the Court is in relation to the procedural matters, for section 151 is part of procedural Code. This section cannot be used to disturb the substantive rights of the parties.
Thus, inherent powers of the court, would not include:
- a power of revision under S 115 of the Code, even in cases to which that section is not applicable.
- Similarly, in view of the express provision in 037, r 4, for setting aside a decree passed under that order, an application to do so, under this section, would be untenable.
- Also, this section cannot be resorted to in order to avoid the application of 01, r10, when an application under that rule has been rejected.
- If relief can properly be obtained in a separate suit, there is no justification for invoking S 151, and the court will not by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction, amend a consent decree on the ground of fraud, unless the fraud is a fraud upon the Court,
- or set aside a consent decree on the ground of coercion, there being a suitable remedy by way of a suit.
- A Court cannot make use of the special provisions of this section, where the applicant has his remedy provided elsewhere in the Code, and has neglected to avail of the same”.
Rest to follow in the other parts of the blog.