The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, governs the procedural aspects of civil litigation in India. While the CPC lays down specific rules and procedures, there are situations where the prescribed provisions may be insufficient to ensure justice. To address such situations, the courts are vested with inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC.
The term "inherent power" refers to the court's power that is not explicitly provided in the CPC but is necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process. These powers exist independent of statutory provisions and allow courts to act fairly even when no explicit rule applies.
The doctrine of inherent powers originates from the common law principle that courts must be able to act in the interest of justice, even if no express provision exists.
Precedent in British Law: The English common law system recognized that courts possess an inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and ensure fairness.
Indian Law Adoption: Section 151 CPC was incorporated to codify this principle while ensuring that inherent powers do not override the express provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
"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."
β
It allows courts to pass necessary orders.
β
It ensures justice is not defeated due to procedural limitations.
β
It prevents abuse of judicial process.
β
It does not override express provisions of CPC but acts as a residual power.
The inherent powers of the court are broad and apply in various circumstances, including:
The court may intervene where a party misuses legal provisions to harass the other party, delay proceedings, or obtain an unfair advantage.
πΉ Example: Filing multiple suits on the same matter to delay justice.
If a situation arises where justice cannot be served under the express provisions of CPC, the court can use inherent powers to ensure fairness.
πΉ Example: If an order passed due to fraud or misrepresentation is found later, the court can recall it.
If a case is dismissed by mistake, the court can restore it under its inherent powers.
πΉ Case Law: Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Seth Hiralal (1962 AIR 527) β The Supreme Court held that courts can exercise inherent power even in the absence of specific provisions in CPC to ensure justice.
If a party requires urgent relief and no direct provision exists in CPC, the court may use its inherent power.
πΉ Example: Issuing an injunction to prevent irreversible harm, even if it is not explicitly covered under Order 39 CPC.
Although Section 151 CPC grants courts broad powers, it has certain limitations:
Cannot Override Express Provisions
If CPC has a specific provision for a situation, inherent power cannot be used to contradict it.
πΉ Example: A court cannot reopen a judgment under Section 151 CPC if an appeal is already provided under Order 41 CPC.
Cannot Create a New Right
Courts can only fill procedural gaps, not grant new legal rights.
Cannot Be Used as a Substitute for Appeal or Revision
If a party has an option to appeal, review, or revise a decision, the inherent power cannot be used as a shortcut.
Must Be Used Sparingly
Courts should exercise inherent power only in exceptional cases where justice would otherwise be denied.
Courts must exercise inherent power only to ensure justice and prevent misuse of legal provisions.
πΉ Example: If a party files a case using fraudulent documents, the court can dismiss the case under its inherent power.
Inherent powers can be used to protect fundamental rights, including:
Right to a fair trial
Right to be heard
Protection from abuse of legal procedures
πΉ Example: A case dismissed due to an advocateβs mistake can be restored in the interest of justice.
The inherent power of courts does not create new rights but acts as a gap-filling measure when CPC is silent on an issue.
πΉ Example: Courts cannot grant relief under Section 151 CPC if the same relief is available under a different section.
If a party misuses legal provisions to gain an unfair advantage, the court can intervene under Section 151 CPC.
π Case Law: Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills v. Kanhayalal Bhargava (AIR 1966 SC 1899)
πΉ Held: The Supreme Court ruled that courts must prevent abuse of legal process, and inherent power can be used for quashing vexatious proceedings.
Example Scenarios:
Filing multiple cases on the same issue to delay justice.
Bringing false claims to harass an opponent.
Courts may recall orders passed by mistake or fraud using inherent powers.
π Case Law: Rafiq v. Munshilal (AIR 1981 SC 1400)
πΉ Held: If a case is dismissed due to the absence of an advocate, courts can restore it using inherent powers.
Example Scenarios:
A court dismisses a case due to an administrative error.
A judgment is passed without considering key evidence.
Courts may stay proceedings in special cases to avoid conflicting judgments.
π Case Law: Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 993)
πΉ Held: The Supreme Court ruled that inherent power cannot be used when specific provisions exist for staying a case.
Example Scenarios:
If two cases are pending in different courts on the same subject, the court may stay one of them.
If a case is dismissed due to a technical defect, the court can restore it using inherent powers.
π Case Law: K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275
πΉ Held: Courts have residual discretion to restore cases where no appeal or revision is applicable.
Example Scenario:
A case dismissed due to a partyβs absence in an earlier hearing.
Although Order 39 CPC covers injunctions, courts may issue additional protective orders using Section 151 CPC.
π Case Law: Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Seth Hiralal (AIR 1962 SC 527)
πΉ Held: Courts can issue injunctions under inherent powers, even if not explicitly mentioned in CPC.
Example Scenarios:
Stopping the illegal sale of property before trial.
Protecting evidence from being destroyed.
Held: Inherent powers can be exercised to recall orders in exceptional circumstances where a grave miscarriage of justice is evident.
Held: Inherent power is meant to prevent abuse of process, but it should not be exercised contrary to CPC provisions.
Held: Courts can appoint a commissioner under Section 151 CPC when the situation is not covered under Order 26.
The inherent powers of courts under Section 151 CPC serve as a safeguard against procedural rigidity and ensure that justice prevails in situations not explicitly covered by CPC provisions. However, these powers are not unlimited and must be exercised judiciously to maintain fairness without conflicting with express legal provisions.
β Courts have residual powers to ensure justice.
β Section 151 CPC is not a substitute for appeal, review, or revision.
β These powers must be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
β Preventing abuse of process is a core principle behind inherent powers.
By ensuring flexibility while respecting legal limits, Section 151 CPC plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the Indian judicial system.