Introduction Today’s blog is based on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People’s Education Trust (R) & Ors. Etc. 2026 INSC 1010, that brings into focus the procedural safeguards governing suits instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The decision revisits the significance of the
Part-VI In the preceding parts of this series, we have examined the scope and application of the inherent powers vested in civil courts and the circumstances in which such powers may be exercised to advance the cause of justice. In this final part, we turn to an issue that frequently arises at the stage of
Part-IV The power of a court to secure the ends of justice is not confined to the expressly enumerated provisions of procedural law. As discussed in the earlier parts of this series, the law recognises certain inherent powers that enable courts to respond to situations where the ordinary procedural framework may not provide an adequate
Part-V As the discussion in the previous part demonstrated, the inherent powers of civil courts have a wide and significant practical role in ensuring that the administration of justice is not frustrated by procedural limitations. However, in attempting to cover the various situations in which these powers may be invoked, some important and practically recurring instances
Part-III The preceding part examined situations where recourse to Section 151 is neither permissible nor desirable, underscoring the principle that inherent powers cannot be employed to override or circumvent the express provisions of the Code. However, the converse is equally significant. There remain numerous situations in which the Code is silent, yet judicial intervention is