Section 151 of The Civil Procedure Code | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is a provision designed to preserve the inherent powers of the court, reflecting a legislative acknowledgment of the long-standing doctrine that every court possesses the inherent authority to act ex-debito justitiae – to do what is required for the administration of justice. These inherent powers are integral to the court itself, existing independently of and in addition to any powers specified by the code.
• These constitutional powers inherent in the court are not exhaustively discussed within the code; instead, they are recognized by Section 151. The provision doesn't confer new powers upon the court but rather affirms or acknowledges the inherent authority of the court as a judicial entity mandated to dispense justice.
• The case of Durga Dihal Das vs. Anoraj emphasized that the Code of Civil Procedure is not exhaustive. It recognized that there will always be instances and precedents not explicitly covered by the code where justice is essential. The legislative foresight is limited to more common and foreseeable events, and no set of rules can anticipate every potential situation. Section 151 serves as a safety net, allowing the court to utilize its inherent powers to ensure justice is served in situations not explicitly addressed by the code.

Meaning of Inherent Power

• Definition of Inherent Power: The concept of inherent power is not explicitly defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. According to a Supreme Court case, these powers are inherent in all courts, particularly those of higher authority. They do not stem from legislation but from the very nature and structure of the courts, enabling them to uphold their integrity, ensure compliance with their processes and regulations, protect their officials from disrespect and harm, and penalize misconduct. This authority is crucial for the efficient functioning of the court's proceedings.
• Scope of Inherent Powers: Inherent powers of the court come into play when the law is silent on a particular matter being considered. Even in the absence of specific provisions in the Code, the court cannot utilize its inherent power to override other explicit provisions of the code. These powers are only applicable in situations where the code does not offer a solution, and even then, they are invoked solely to serve the interests of justice or prevent the misuse of the court's procedures.

Object of Section 151

• The main purpose of Section 151 is to strengthen, rather than replace, the remedies provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and not to contravene other explicit provisions. It cannot be utilized if there is a specific provision available for the relief sought by the affected party.
• It is important to note that the court's inherent powers, as outlined in Section 151, are additional to the powers expressly granted to it. These powers can be exercised to ensure justice and prevent the misuse of the court's processes.

Inherent powers of the Court

• Section 151 of the CPC states that the court has inherent powers to issue orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the court's processes.

Ends of Justice

• One aspect of the ends of justice is to remedy harm and prevent unnecessary expenses and inconveniences for the parties involved.
• However, it is crucial to understand that these inherent powers should not be exercised in a way that infringes on the rights of third parties or causes harm or injustice.
• For instance, in the case of Lalta Prasad v. Ram Karan, the court clarified that the concept of "ends of justice" should align with established statutes and laws, rather than allowing personal interpretations of justice to override legal provisions.

Temporary Injunctions

• As seen in the case of Manohar Lal v. Seth Hira Lal, courts have the inherent authority to grant temporary injunctions in situations not covered by specific provisions of the CPC. This power is exercised when deemed necessary for the ends of justice.

Provisions of the Code

• In the case of Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, it was established that Section 151 is intended to address scenarios where the CPC lacks specific procedural guidelines, and justice demands the court to intervene using its inherent powers.

Preventing Abuse of Court Processes

• It is essential to prevent the abuse of court processes. Courts are not authorized to disregard explicit legal provisions. Therefore, Section 151 cannot be used to appeal a non-appealable order.
• In the case of K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi, the court emphasized that the term "abuse of process of Court" refers to the misuse of court procedures, such as relitigating resolved issues, pursuing frivolous claims, or engaging in dilatory tactics.
• The Supreme Court, in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) vs. Union of India, highlighted various actions that could constitute an abuse of the court's processes, including obtaining advantages through deception, initiating unnecessary legal actions, or introducing scandalous elements into proceedings.

Appeal from Order Passed under Section 151

• An appeal cannot be made from an order issued by a court under its inherent jurisdiction as per Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
• If a person feels aggrieved by such an order, they can opt for filing a revision instead, as established in the case of Shiv Ram vs. Smt. Managara.
• An order made under inherent jurisdiction does not fall under the category of a decree or an appealable order laid out in Order 43. Therefore, there is no provision for an appeal against it.

Elaboration:

When a court exercises its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, the resulting order is final and cannot be challenged through a regular appeal process. For instance, if a court issues an order to maintain the status quo in a property dispute using its inherent powers, the parties involved cannot directly appeal against this decision.

Example:

For example, in a scenario where a court, in the absence of specific provisions, passes an order to prevent any party from disposing of a disputed asset until the case is resolved, this order would typically be considered as an exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Clarification:

It's essential to understand that the nature of orders made under inherent jurisdiction is distinct from decrees or orders that are appealable under specific sections of the CPC. Therefore, parties dissatisfied with such orders must seek alternative legal remedies, such as filing a revision petition.

Understanding the Limitations of Section 151

• Section 151 of the legal code does not grant courts new powers but acknowledges their inherent discretionary power to uphold justice and prevent misuse of legal processes.
• When the existing legal code does not cover a specific procedural aspect, Section 151 allows courts to use their inherent power to address such gaps in the interest of justice.
• Courts cannot overstep their legal boundaries by using inherent powers when the legal code already provides remedies or procedures for a particular matter.
• The inherent powers of the court are supplementary to explicitly granted powers and can be used when a situation is not covered by existing legal provisions, as long as it does not contradict the legislative intent.
• While exercising inherent power, courts must be cautious and prudent since there is no clear legislative guidance, and decisions must be based on the circumstances of each case to ensure justice without misuse of the legal system.
• Section 151 should only be invoked when absolutely necessary, in the absence of relevant legal provisions, with no doubts about the applicant's intentions, and when it serves the interests of justice and prevents abuse of the legal process.

Instances of Exercising Inherent Powers by the Court

• To order joint trial: In cases where multiple suits are interconnected or involve common questions of law or fact, a court may order a joint trial to ensure efficiency and consistency in the adjudication process. For example, if two parties have filed separate but related cases, the court may decide to hear them together to avoid conflicting judgments.
• To postpone the hearing of a suit: Courts may exercise their inherent powers to postpone the hearing of a suit for various reasons such as the unavailability of key witnesses, pending related matters, or the need for additional evidence. This allows for a fair and thorough consideration of the case.
• To stay cross-suits: When parties file cross-suits against each other, a court can stay these suits to prevent conflicting judgments and promote a more streamlined resolution of the disputes involved. This ensures that the legal proceedings proceed in a manner that is coherent and efficient.
• To ascertain whether proper parties are before it or not: Before proceeding with a case, a court may use its inherent powers to determine whether all necessary parties are involved in the legal proceedings. This ensures that all relevant stakeholders are included in the case to facilitate a comprehensive and just resolution.
• To set aside a sale brought about by fraud practiced in the court: If a sale is conducted through fraudulent means within the court premises, the court has the authority to set aside such a sale to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and prevent any unjust outcomes.
• To entertain the application of a third person to be made a party: In certain situations, a third party may seek to join ongoing legal proceedings. The court can use its inherent powers to consider such applications and determine whether the third party should be allowed to participate in the case based on the merits of the situation.
• To restore a suit dismissed for default in cases not provided by Order IV Rule 9: In cases where a suit has been dismissed due to default by a party and the circumstances are not covered by specific legal provisions, the court may, in the exercise of its inherent powers, reinstate the suit to ensure that justice is served and parties are not unfairly prejudiced.
• To correct its own mistakes: Courts have the inherent authority to rectify any errors or oversights made in their judgments or orders to uphold the principles of fairness and justice. This power allows the court to maintain the accuracy and integrity of its decisions.
• To direct the parties to deposit additional fees: In situations where additional fees are required for the continuation of legal proceedings or for other purposes, the court can exercise its inherent powers to instruct the parties involved to make the necessary deposits. This ensures that the financial aspects of the case are properly addressed.
• To review an interlocutory order made in chambers: Interlocutory orders are provisional decisions made during the course of legal proceedings. If such an order is made in chambers (privately), the court may use its inherent powers to review and potentially modify or revoke the order to ensure that it aligns with the interests of justice.
• To hold a trial in camera: Under specific circumstances, such as cases involving sensitive information or issues of privacy, a court may decide to conduct a trial in camera (privately) to protect the interests of the parties involved. This ensures confidentiality and discretion in the legal proceedings.
• To allow the amendment of pleadings: When parties wish to make changes to their initial pleadings or submissions in a case, the court can permit such amendments through its inherent powers. This flexibility ensures that the parties have a fair opportunity to present their case effectively.
• In applying the principles of res judicata to cases not falling under Section 11 of the code: Res judicata is a legal doctrine that prevents the same parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been conclusively determined by a court. Even in cases not explicitly covered by Section 11 of the legal code, courts can apply the principles of res judicata to prevent the re-litigation of settled matters.
• In causing restitution to be made on the reversal of a decree: If a court reverses a previous decree based on an appeal or review, it may use its inherent powers to ensure that restitution is made to the party that was adversely affected by the original decree. This helps to rectify any injustices resulting from the prior decision.
• In consolidating suits and appeals, even without the consent of the parties: To promote judicial efficiency and avoid conflicting judgments, a court may consolidate multiple suits or appeals related to the same issues or parties. Even without unanimous consent from the parties involved, the court can exercise its inherent powers to consolidate these legal matters for a more coherent resolution.

These instances illustrate the diverse ways in which courts can utilize their inherent powers to ensure the proper administration of justice and uphold the integrity of legal proceedings.

Instances where the court lacks inherent power

• The court is not authorized to dismiss a defense on its own accord.
• It cannot issue an injunction if the conditions outlined in Order 39, rule 1 are not met.
• Amendment of a decree upon request from the auction purchaser is beyond the court's inherent jurisdiction.
• Granting interest post the decree's date, especially if the decree is silent on this matter, is not permissible.
• Consolidating lawsuits based on varying claims is not within the court's inherent powers.
• Reinstating a suit that was previously dismissed due to non-payment of court fees is beyond the court's purview.
• Hearing appeals from or against non-appealable orders is not a jurisdiction the court holds.
• Forcing parties to undergo medical examinations or blood tests is not within the court's domain.
• Releasing security to a party without a formal request is not a power the court possesses.
• Nullifying an ex parte decree is not something the court can do on its own.
• Revisiting or reviewing a court order is not a prerogative the court inherently has.
• No court has the authority to bypass the regulations set forth in Section 10 of the code.

Examples:

• For instance, a court cannot simply strike out a defendant's defense without proper legal cause or due process.
• If the requirements under Order 39, rule 1 for an injunction are not met, the court cannot grant one, ensuring fair application of legal standards.