Inherent Powers of the Court under CPC, 1908

Introduction:

Laws are the fundamental rules and no matter how wisely it is framed, it cannot make express provisions against all the cases or provide for all contingencies for all times. The laws are just a medium to achieve justice and are not the end result. If the ordinary rules of procedure do not cater to justice in any case, it becomes the duty of the court to countermand those rules.

The Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’) not only considers powers but it also takes into consideration the restrictions, of which few powers called Inherent powers are entrusted in the court but are not given in the code. So, for the ends of justice and for preventing the misuse of the court processes, the court is allowed to apply such powers.

For complaints which have no ameliorate given in CPC, the court might practice inherent powers under section 151 to review those. It allows the parties to carry on with the court proceedings which might be pending to achieve justice. Also, these powers cannot be exercised either for reopening an already settled case or for restraining the execution of a decree for the purpose of a party who was not involved in the suit. In cases where there is a conflict with, or infringement of, or neglecting of any express and explicit provision of law, the inherent powers cannot be practised. These powers can help in curtailing the litigation process, preventing multiplicity of proceedings and provide fair and proper justice.

Meaning of Inherent Power

The term “Inherent” has a huge background and can be applied to various situations. It implies existing and inseparable from something, a lasting trait or quality, a fundamental component, something intrinsic, or crucial, vested in or attached to an individual or office as a privilege. Thus, these powers are inalienable from courts and might be exercised by a court to do full and complete justice between the parties before it.

Provisions of Section 148 to 153B of CPC

Section 148 to Section 153A of the CPC includes the provisions regarding the inherent powers of Court, which deals with the powers applied in different situations:

1. Section 148: Enlargement of time

It states that the court is empowered to extend the fixed term by 30 days even if the originally fixed period has been expired. It is applicable only when there is an absence of a particular provision to the contrary which denies or withholds the jurisdiction. It depends upon the choice of the court to cater to the demand of the parties wanting such extensions; however, this power cannot be claimed by the party.

J. Hidayatullah rightly worded, “conditional orders are not like the laws of Medes and Persians”[1].

J. Desai stated, “the danger inherent in passing conditional orders becomes self-evident because that by itself may result in taking away jurisdiction conferred on the court for just decision of the case. The true purpose of conditional orders is that such orders merely create something like a guarantee or sanction for obedience of the court’s order but would not take away the court’s jurisdiction to act according to the mandate of the statute or the relevant equitable considerations if the statute does not deny such considerations”[2].

2. Section 149: Payment of Court Fees

According to Section 149 of CPC, the amount which has not yet been paid as fees to the court can be allowed to be paid by the party on the direction of the court on a complaint or notice of appeal etc., even when the limitation period for filing of the lawsuit or appeal, etc. has been expired. Presentation of any document which is to be submitted along with the court fee, the payment for the same is mandatory. A faulty document is validated when such payments are made within the time period fixed by the court. The power of the court is discretionary in nature and should be applied only to the importance of justice.

3. Section 150: Transfer of Business

According to this section 150, when the business of any Court is administered by any other Court, the transferee court shall have the same power and obligations given or commanded by CPC or upon the transfer court where the business was so assigned.

4. Section 151: Saving of Inherent Powers of Court

The inherent powers of the court to make any order that would be essential for the ends of justice or to restrict the abuse of court processes, should not be limited or affected by any provisions in CPC. So basically, the court is not obliged to follow the laws set by the parliament or the orders given by the higher authorities, it has its own inherent power to produce such orders for the security of justice or to check misuse of the method of the Court.

The scope of Section 151 of CPC:

• The orders can be rechecked and the errors can be determined by the court;
• Orders which are illegal or passed without any proper jurisdiction can be nullified;
• The court can consider subsequent events in the case.
• The court can eradicate the comments made against a judge;
• The court has the power to re-hear on merit or re-examines its order

Exercise of Inherent Powers by the Court

The court considers two major principles to exercise its inherent powers. Firstly, to check the infringement of the process, the court may apply its inherent power to do justice. And secondly, to prevent the abuse of process of the court.

It grants the judges to make orders which are necessary to achieve justice. Since CPC is the fundamental law that governs the operations of the courts, the power can be applied to support the provisions of the code instead of overriding.

• Ends of Justice

The term “ends of justice” as described in the case of Debendranath v Satya Bala Dass[3], was reported as a courtly word and not just a word which in legal methodology signifies polite expression. However, according to the legal system that our states follow, this expression was not something strange or an unsettling notion.

The inherent powers can be applied in certain cases by the court such as- reviewing the orders passed earlier and resolve the flaws, for passing injunction when it is excluded by order 39, etc.

• Abuse of Process of the Court

Section 151 of the CPC states that the court can establish its inherent powers to keep control over the violation of the court processes. Abuse of the powers of the court is an unfair use of legal proceedings in order to achieve an improper advantage over a party. This expression is used in relation with action for practising fraud on the court to damage the party with unfair means. Therefore, remedies should be provided to the parties in such cases on the grounds of actus curiae neminem gravabit, i.e., an act of the court shall prejudice no one. So, a party to the proceedings shall become the perpetrator of the abuse when the said party performs any act to gain benefit by doing fraud on the court or a party to the case.

5. Section 152: Amendment of Judgements, Decrees, Orders and Other Records

This section confers the power to correct any mistakes made in judgement, decrees or orders at any time upon the court, either of its own accord or upon receiving application.

6. Section 153: General Authority to Amend

The court is empowered to amend any flaw/error in any court proceedings. Also, all essential amendments shall be made to decide the genuine inquiry or any sort of issue which is being raised or relying upon such a procedure. Additionally, 153A allows the court to alter a decree or order where the appeal has been immediately declined, and 153B deems the place of trial to be an open court.

Therefore, section 152 and 153 of the CPC clearly states that any mistake by the court can be corrected at any point.

Limitation

The exercise of inherent powers carries certain limitations such as:

• They can be applied only in the absence of a particular provision in the Code;
• They cannot be applied in conflict with an express provision in the code;
• They can be applied in exceptional cases;
• The court must follow the prescribed procedure when operating the powers.
• Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction not conferred in them by law;
• Stick to the doctrine of Res Judicata i.e., not to reopen the already decided issues;
• To direct a mediator to make an award over again;
• Substantive privileges of the parties shall not be removed; 
• To restrict a party from taking proceedings in a courtroom;
• To set apart an order which was lawful at the hour of its issuance.

Case Laws

• It was held in Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal[4], that the S.151 ensures inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders which are ex debito justitiae in nature and thus cannot be used to nullify the provisions of CPC. The express provision regarding a particular matter under CPC shall be considered as exhaustive.

• In Bahadur Pradhani v. Gopal Patel[5] case, because of the non-payment of the lack of court fee within the time period set by the court, the plaint of a money suit was rejected. So, the scope of the inherent powers of the court was examined and was stated that the code does not restrict or affect any inherent power. It is the power inherent in the court in order to grant justice to the parties in the proceedings.

• In KK Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy[6] case, a suit was petitioned for specific performance of a contract for consideration of ₹ 2,40,000, where ₹ 1,60,000 was paid ahead of time and the remaining was supposed to be paid within 3 months after which the sales deed would be executed. However, according to the respondent, the appealing party did not appear at the Sub-Registrar’s office. All the evidence was also dismissed both by the trial court and the High court. The trial court executed discretionary powers under section 151 of CPC for accepting the application of the ‘compact disc’ provided as a piece of evidence. The trial court was ordered to hear the issue based on the judgment of this case.

Conclusion

A codified statute like the Code of Civil Procedure under the Indian legal system targets making the judicial system more uniform and fairer. The fact that not every circumstance can be pre-empted is taken under consideration by the legal process of the aforementioned system and it holds good for even the procedures to be followed. Section 151 of the code generally approves this fact by acknowledging the ability of the court in respect with providing justice in even those circumstances where the Code of Civil Procedure or any other statute is not exercised and finds itself unequipped to grant justice and ignore the abuse of the process of the law court since it is one of the most essential duties of the court.

It is unfeasible for the legislature to frame laws by foreseeing every situation that might exist. So, for the purpose of encountering such circumstances, some inherent powers have to be entrusted to the court. This is required for fulfilling the ends of justice. Section 151 particularly empowers the court to grant justice, even when CPC is not applicable or is irrelevant to grant proper justice. For instance, it was held in the case of Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Kanhayalal Bhargava[7], that the limitations which are imposed by the provisions of Section 151 of the Code have no control over the inherent powers of the court to make specific orders for preventing the abuse of the process of the court.

Thus, it can be inferred that Section 151 gives a way to the individuals through which they can walk and search for justice, where no such remedies exist through other expressed provisions of CPC. The Legislature, while drafting the Code, were aware of the fact that all possible circumstances would not be covered by the expressed provisions of the CPC. The scope of Inherent Powers is very wide so that justice is granted instantly.

---

References:

[1] Rishi Jain, Vasu Jain & Shaurya Singh Rathore, INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT UNDER THE CPC (Feb. 6 2015), https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/inherent-powers-court-cpc-2/ .

[2] Sheen Kaul, INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT UNDER CPC (July 28, 2020), https://www.legalbites.in/inherent-powers-of-the-court-under-cpc .

[3] Debendranath v Satya Bala Dass, AIR 1950 Cal 217.

[4] Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527.

[5] Bahadur Pradhani v. Gopal Patel, AIR 1964 Ori 134.

[6] K K Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275

[7] Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Kanhayalal Bhargava, AIR 1966 SC P.1890.