Inherent Powers of Court under CPC

The inherent power of court under CPC is something it has just because it’s a court and can handle cases. This power is part of the law and it includes everything a court can do. Sections 148 to 153-B of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 talk about these inherent powers, but they only apply to courts, not other authorities.

The word “inherent” means something that is natural or always connected to something else. So, when we talk about inherent powers, we mean the abilities a court has to make sure everything is fair and complete in a case.

The Code has rules, but they can’t cover every situation because the people who make the rules can’t predict everything that might happen in the future. That’s when these inherent powers come into play. They can be used when there are no specific rules in the Code to handle a situation and they are used to make sure things are fair and just.

What are Inherent Powers of Court under CPC?

The inherent powers of court refer to the abilities that the court possesses, even though they are not explicitly mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure. While the Code of Civil Procedure outlines the procedures that Civil Courts must follow when delivering justice, it cannot cover every possible situation that may arise. Therefore, courts are granted additional powers to address specific emerging situations or prevent misuse of the legal process.

These inherent powers of court can be exercised as a matter of justice when there are no specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it’s important to note that these powers cannot be used in a way that contradicts or ignores the existing laws.

In the case of Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree (AIR 2009 SC 285), the court emphasised that inherent powers under CPC should not be used in violation of specific legal provisions.

In the case of Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila (MANU/SC/0192/1964: AIR 1965 SC 364), the Supreme Court explained that the Code of Civil Procedure is designed to address procedural matters in civil trials. It grants courts certain hidden powers to deal with unforeseen situations during proceedings, but these inherent power of court can only be invoked when there are no explicit provisions in the Code. If there are specific provisions in the Code, the court cannot use its inherent powers.

Sections 148, 149, 151, 152, 153 and 153A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, outline the law regarding the court’s inherent powers in different circumstances.

Provisions for  Inherent Powers of Court under CPC: Section 148 to 153B of CPC

The law concerning the inherent powers of Court can be found in Section 148 to Section 153A of the Civil Procedure Code. These sections outline how the court’s inherent powers can be exercised in various situations. Here’s a breakdown of the provisions related to the inherent powers of the courts:

• Section 148 and Section 149: These sections deal with the granting or extension of time.
• Section 150: This section addresses the transfer of business from one court to another.
• Section 151: Section 151 safeguards the inherent powers of the courts.
• Section 152, 153 and Section 153A: These sections cover the modification of judgments, decrees, or orders, as well as separate proceedings.

These sections collectively provide a framework for the court to utilise its inherent powers in specific circumstances as outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Enlargement of Time [Section 148, CPC]

Section 148 of the CPC explains that when the court sets a specific time frame for performing an action as required by the CPC, it has the authority to extend that period. This extension can happen multiple times, even if the original time limit has passed.

In simpler terms, if the law sets a deadline for doing something, the court can give you extra time, up to 30 days, if there’s no other rule that says otherwise. However, the court has the freedom to decide whether or not to grant this extra time and the extension can only apply to the originally set time frame. It’s a discretionary power.

Payment of Court Fees [Section 149, CPC]

Section 149 of the CPC allows the court to give someone a chance to pay the required court fee if they haven’t paid it fully or partly as required by the law for documents like complaints or appeals. This permission can be granted even after the time limit for filing the lawsuit or appeal has passed.

In simple terms, when a document needs a specific court fee, it’s crucial to pay it on time. If it’s not paid in time, the document could be considered as filed too late (time-barred). However, Section 149 lets the court decide whether to let you pay the missing fee later. If the court agrees, your document will be treated as if you paid the fee on time from the beginning.

This power of the court is discretionary and should be used in the interest of justice.

Conditions For Enlargement of Time by Courts

In the case of Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das (MANU/SC/0027/1961: AIR 1961 SC 882: 1961 3 SCR 763), the issue revolved around a shortage of court fees that the appellant needed to pay by a certain date. However, the appellant couldn’t pay on time and requested an extension well before the deadline.

The High Court didn’t consider this request due to an earlier strict order issued by the Division Bench handling the appeal. This was mainly because the application for the extension of time was made after the initial deadline had passed.

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 148 of the CPC provides the court with significant authority to ensure justice for a litigant if there is a valid reason for an extension. Another order extending the time for payment, even if granted after the original deadline, can be effective from the date when the initial deadline expired. The High Court, in this case, made a mistake by not granting the extension of time.

In another important case, Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh (MANU/SC/0245/1989: 1989 4 SCC 403: AIR 1989 SC 2073: 1991 BC 84 (SC): JT 1989 (3) SC 582: 1989 96 PLR 617: 1989 2 SCALE 518: 1989 Supp 1 SCR 17), the Supreme Court emphasised that the power granted by this section is discretionary in nature. The court can use this inherent power of court under to serve the cause of justice, but it is not an automatic right for the party. Before exercising this power, the court should consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the behavior of the applicant.

Transfer of Business [Section 150, CPC]

Section 150 of the CPC states that unless there is a different arrangement in place, when the functions or responsibilities of one court are transferred to another court, the receiving court will have the same authority and responsibilities as the original court.

In other words, if Court A’s tasks and powers are transferred to Court B, Court B will assume the same legal authority and duties that were originally designated for Court A under the CPC.

Saving of Inherent Powers of Court: Section 151 of CPC

Section 151 of the CPC, which deals with the “Saving of inherent powers of Court,” ensures that nothing in the CPC can limit or interfere with the inherent power of the Court to issue orders that are necessary for the interests of justice or to prevent misuse of the legal process. In other words, the court is not bound by strict legal provisions and has the discretion to make orders that are not explicitly provided for in the law, as long as it serves the cause of justice or prevents abuse of the legal system.

Here are some examples of how Section 151 of the CPC can be applied:

• Correction of Errors: The court can review its own orders and correct any mistakes.
• Provisional Measures: It can grant temporary injunctions when a case doesn’t fall under the provisions of Order 39, or it can set aside an ‘ex parte’ order.
• Setting Aside Illegal Orders: The court has the power to nullify orders that were made unlawfully or without jurisdiction.
• Consideration of Subsequent Events: It can take into account events that occurred after a case was initiated.
• Privacy of Proceedings: The court can decide to conduct a trial ‘in camera’ (in private) or protect the confidentiality of its proceedings.
• Erasing Remarks: It can remove unfavorable remarks made against a judge.
• Improving a Suit: The court can amend a lawsuit and re-hear it on its merits or re-examine its previous orders.

In essence, Section 151 grants the court the flexibility to take actions that may not be explicitly outlined in the law but are necessary to ensure justice is served and the legal process is not misused.

Ends of Justice

In the case of Debendranath v. Satya Bala Dass, the meaning of “ends of justice” was clarified. It was emphasised that “ends of justice” are not just polite words but carry profound significance in legal practice. These words signify that justice is the ultimate goal and purpose of all legal proceedings. However, this expression is not vague; it aligns with the principles of justice as defined by the laws and statutes of the land.

The court can invoke its inherent powers of civil court to serve the “ends of justice” in various situations, such as reviewing its own orders to correct errors or issuing injunctions when not explicitly covered by Order 39, including ‘ex parte’ orders and more.

Abuse of Process of the Court

Section 151 of the CPC allows for the exercise of inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the court’s processes. When the court’s powers are misused unfairly to the detriment of a party, remedies can be granted to ensure that no one is unfairly prejudiced. These remedies are based on the court’s inherent powers.

The term ‘abuse’ occurs when the court uses its authority in a manner that it should not, resulting in an injustice. In such cases, the court should remedy the harm done to the party based on the principle that “an act of the court shall prejudice no one” (actus curiae neminem gravabit). A party can be considered the perpetrator of abuse when it engages in actions such as fraudulently obtaining benefits from the court or another party, causing unnecessary multiple legal proceedings and so on.

When Can A Court Exercise Inherent Powers?

ISection 151 of the CPC does not introduce a new power to the court but acknowledges the court’s inherent power to take certain actions in the interest of justice. This inherent power of court is invoked to achieve substantial justice and is considered an extraordinary measure, not a mandatory one. It comes into play when there is no other adequate remedy available and helps overcome difficulties arising from procedural rules. Here are some circumstances and cases in which a court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 151:

• Consolidation of Suits and Appeals: The court can consolidate multiple suits and appeals, even without the consent of the parties.
• Joint Trial of Suits: It can order the joint trial of separate suits if it serves the interests of justice.
• Verification of Proper Parties: The court can verify whether the correct parties are involved in the case.
• Adding a Third Party: It may entertain an application from a third person seeking to be added as a party to the case.
• Defence in Forma Pauperis: The court can permit a defendant to present their defense as a pauper (without paying fees) in appropriate cases.
• Suspending or Amending Its Orders: In the interest of justice, the court may delay or modify the execution of its own orders.
• Application of Res Judicata: It can apply the principles of res judicata to cases not explicitly covered by Section 11 of the CPC.
• Adding a Party: The court can add a party to a case when necessary.
• Contempt of Court: The court can summarily punish contempt of court by imprisonment.
• Transposing Parties: Parties may be shifted or rearranged in the case.
• Withdrawal of Plaintiffs: The court can refuse permission to a co-plaintiff who wants to withdraw from a suit without intending to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action or impose conditions on withdrawal.
• Stay of Proceedings: It can stay proceedings in anticipation of an intended appeal.
• Jurisdiction: The court can decide questions of jurisdiction and, if necessary, determine that it lacks jurisdiction over the suit.
• Restoring Dismissed Suits: In cases not covered by Rule 9 of Order 9, the court can restore a suit that was dismissed for default.
• Refund of Court Fee: It can order the refund of court fees paid inadvertently.
• Stay of Suit: The court can stay a suit that does not fall under Section 10 (Res sub judice).
• Reconstruction of Records: In cases where court records are lost due to accidents, the court can order their reconstruction.

These are some examples of the situations in which a court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to ensure justice is served and to address unique or unforeseen circumstances that may not be explicitly covered by standard procedural rules.

When Cannot A Court Exercise Inherent Power?

Section 151 of the CPC is primarily aimed at achieving justice and rectifying wrongful actions in cases of abuse of the court’s processes, fraud, or misrepresentation by a party, or in situations where there is a lack of procedural rules to address specific circumstances in a case. However, while invoking inherent powers of court, the court must ensure that it does not undermine this objective.

It’s important to note that inherent powers cannot be exercised when there is a specific provision in the code that addresses the issue. In such cases, the code takes precedence.

Here are some situations in which inherent powers of court under CPC should not be used:

• Interim Relief: Inherent powers should not be used to grant interim relief that is typically granted only through a final decree after the resolution of the main issues in the case.
• Compelling Medical Examination: The court should not use inherent powers to compel parties to undergo medical examinations or blood tests, as specific provisions often govern such matters.
• Appointment of a Commissioner: Inherent powers of court under CPC should not be used to appoint a commissioner to seise account-books in the possession of the plaintiff, as this can be governed by specific procedures.
• Order Review: While Section 151 allows for the exercise of inherent powers, it should not be used to reconsider or review an order, as the CPC provides distinct mechanisms for this purpose.
• Setting Aside an Ex Parte Decree: Specific provisions in the CPC deal with setting aside ex parte decrees, so inherent powers  of court should not be invoked for this purpose.
• Striking a Defence: Inherent powers should not be used to strike a defense when other specific provisions govern such actions.
• Restoring Dismissed Suits: If a suit is dismissed for non-payment of court fees under Rule 11(d) of Order 7, inherent powers of civil court should not be used to restore it unless specific conditions are met.
• Refunding Court Fees: Inherent powers of court should not be used to refund court fees on a review application unless it is based on grounds other than a mistake of law or fact.

In the context of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), it’s unnecessary to engage in a detailed or exhaustive examination of the circumstances in which a court has inherent jurisdiction, as long as we understand the accepted and acknowledged limitations on the existence of such jurisdiction.

It is widely recognised that the inherent power of the court cannot supersede the express provisions of the law. In simpler terms, if the CPC contains specific provisions that deal with a particular matter and those provisions explicitly or by necessary implication encompass the extent of the court’s powers or jurisdiction concerning that matter, then the court’s inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent or override the powers granted by the CPC.

It’s important to note that this prohibition need not be explicitly stated in the CPC but can be implied or inferred from the very nature of the provisions it includes to address specific situations. This principle is well-established in legal jurisprudence, as illustrated in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1965 SC 993).

Limitations

Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code grants the court certain inherent powers, but these powers have limitations:

Not in Conflict with CPC

The inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC is meant to complement and work alongside the powers explicitly provided in the CPC. It should not contradict or go against any of the powers granted by the CPC, whether directly stated or implied. If the CPC covers a particular issue, Section 151 cannot be used. This has been established in various legal cases, such as Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese, Mahoharlal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur and Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Vs. Kanhyalal Bhargava.

Cannot Nullify CPC Provisions

The inherent power under Section 151 cannot be employed to nullify the provisions of the CPC. If the CPC explicitly addresses a matter, it should generally be considered as comprehensive. This principle is outlined in cases like State of U.P. Vs. Roshan Singh and National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. C. Parmeshwara.

Statutory Provisions Prevail

Section 151 cannot be used when there is a statutory provision in the CPC that addresses the same issue. For instance, if an application can be dealt with under specific provisions of the CPC, invoking Section 151 is not appropriate. This concept is illustrated in cases like Satya Prakash Tiwari Vs. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Etawah & Others, which cited legal precedents including Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese, Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar, Atmaram Properties Private Limited Vs. Federal Motors Private Limited, Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement, Naina Singh Vs. Koowarjee and State of W.B. Vs. Karan Singh Binayak.

No Alternative Remedy

Section 151 of the CPC should not be used when there is an alternative remedy available. Its purpose is to complement, not replace, the remedies provided by the CPC. If there is a specific provision or alternative recourse under the law, Section 151 should not be invoked. This principle was upheld in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Roshan Singh.

Amendment of Judgments, Decrees, oOders and Other Records [Section 152, CPC]

Section 152 of the CPC addresses the “Amendment of judgments, decrees and orders.” Under this section, the court has the authority to correct any written or mathematical errors in judgments, decrees, or orders. It also allows for the rectification of mistakes that arise due to an unexpected oversight or imperfection.

Section 153, on the other hand, provides the “General authority to amend.” This section grants the court the power to rectify any errors or faults in the proceedings of a lawsuit. It enables necessary corrections to be made to address issues that have been raised or that are relevant to the ongoing proceedings.

Both Section 152 and Section 153 of the CPC emphasise that the court can rectify any errors in its records at any time during the legal process.

Additionally, Section 153A and Section 153B of the CPC,1908, deal with the power to amend a decree or order when an appeal is summarily dismissed and the determination of the place of the trial, respectively. These sections provide specific provisions for addressing certain situations in the legal process.

Conclusion

The Inherent Powers of the Court under the Civil Procedure Code serve as a vital tool to ensure justice prevails in situations not explicitly covered by the CPC’s provisions. While Section 151 of the CPC empowers the court to take actions necessary to prevent abuse of the legal process, it is not a carte blanche authority.

These inherent powers of court are subject to well-established limitations. They cannot supersede specific provisions of the CPC, nullify its provisions, or be invoked when alternative remedies exist. Courts must exercise these powers judiciously, adhering to the overriding objective of upholding justice.

In essence, inherent powers of court are a necessary supplement to the CPC, stepping in to address unique and unforeseen circumstances that demand the court’s intervention while preserving the integrity of established legal procedures.