PRINCIPLE

The underlying principle behind envisaging of section 151 is that every court is constituted
for the purpose of doing justice according to law and must be deemed to posses, as a
necessary corollary and has in its very constitution of such powers as may be necessary to do
the right and undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice.

SCHEME OF INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

The substantive provisions dealing as such with the inherent powers are Section 148 to 153-B
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 148 and 149 provide for grant and enlargement
of time while section 151 preserves inherent powers of courts. Sections 152, 153, 153-A deal
with amendments in judgment, decrees, orders and in other proceedings while section 153-B
declares the place of trial to be an open court, Section 150, however, provides for transfer of
business.

MEANING
1) INHERENT POWERS:If we take dictionary meaning of the word inherent then it alludes its meaning as Natural,
existing and inseparable from something, a permanent attribute or quality, an essential
element, something intrinsic or essential, vested in or attached to a person or office as a right
of privilege1.
Now, coming to the meaning of the word power, the meaning drawn out in the case of Seth
Lookasan Sethiya v. Ivan E John2 , is that power means authority, whether any discretion is
left or not and whether any direction is imperative or directory relates to the manner and
exercise of the power and not to the basic ingredient of the authority itself. Without authority,
a valid act cannot be done irrespective of whether the act is discretionary on the part of the
doer of the act, or he is bound to do it. In both situations, he must have authority.
Thus, if the connotation of the both the words are clubbed together it elicits that inherent
power is the natural or essential power conferred upon irrespective of any conferment of
discretion, meaning thereby if this connotation is read out in terms of section 151 it comes to
it that as such there is no conferment of power on court but there is declaration that inherent
power of the court exists and this power is not limited or affected by anything in the code.

1 Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2002); Chambers 20th Century Dictionary

(1992) at pg 647; Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1994) at pg
732
2 AIR 1975 ALL 113 at pg 121; P Ramanatha Aiyar, Concise Law Dictionary, 3rd Edn,
2009, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur

Even otherwise the language of section 151 is very clear in terms that it specifically states
that the court can make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or to
prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The importance attributed to this provision is
manifest from its judicial exposition.

In the end it would be palpable to say that powers necessary to do right and undo wrong in
the course of the administration of justice constitute an inherent power of the court3.
2) ENDS OF JUSTICE
One of the objects underlying Section 151 of the code is for ends of justice in other words
it can be termed as the objectives of justice.
In the case of Debendranath v. Satya Bala Dass 4, the phrase ends of justice was explained
and it was held that ends of justice are solemn words and not mere polite expression in
juristic methodology and justice is the pursuit and end of all law. But these words do not
mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice according to statutes and laws of the land.
Thus, from the above explanation it can be said that one of the reasons for invoking inherent
powers by the court is to do justice when injustice is highly manifest. In other words the
inherent powers of a court can be invoked only for the attainment of the ends of substantial
justice; court may do what is fair and equitable5.
3) ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT
Ground no.2 upon which the court can invoke its inherent power is to prevent abuse of the
process of the court. Here, abuse of process means the frivolous and vexatious use of legal
proceedings6 and abuse of the process of the court also means the malicious and improper use
of some regular legal proceedings to obtain an unfair advantage over an opponent 7. The term
is generally used in connection with action for using some process of the court maliciously to
the injury of another person.

3 See P. Sirajuddin v. Government of Madras, AIR 1962 Mad 117 at pg 131, 132;
also see Doabia T S Justice, MLJs Code of Civil Procedure, Vol.2, 13th Edn, 2008
4 AIR 1950 Cal 217 at pg 233
5 See AIR 1925 Mad 42
6 See P Ramanatha Aiyar, concise law dictionary, 3rd Edn, reprint 2009, Lexis
Nexis
7 ibid

The question which strikes the mind is that whether abuse may be committed by court or a
person/party to a proceeding?
Now, in answer to the above question it is submitted that abuse may be committed by a court
or by a party8.
For instance, where a court employs a procedure in doing something which it never intended
to do and there is miscarriage of justice, there is an abuse of process by the court itself. The
only way to fill this vacuum of injustice is to remedy the party on the basis of doctrine actus
curiae neminem gravabit9-an act of court shall prejudice no one.
Secondly, a party to litigation may also be guilty of an abuse of the process of the court and
the same is explained with the help of following cases:

The party may be guilty of an abuse of the process of court10

By obtaining benefits by practicing fraud on the court11;

By resorting to or encouraging multiplicity of proceedings12;

By instituting vexatious, obstructive or dilatory tactics13;

By introducing scandalous or objectionable matter in proceedings14;

By trying to secure an undue advantage over the opposite party15, etc.

8 See Takwani C K, Civil Procedure, 6th Edn, 2009, Eastern Book Company at pg
734
9 See Brooms Legal Maxims, 10th Edn, Universal Law Publ. Co., Reprint 2008
10 See Takwani C K, Civil Procedure, 6th Edn, 2009, Eastern Book Company at pg
734; also see Doabia T S Justice,MLJs Code of Civil Procedure, Vol.2, 13th Edn,
2008; also see Saha A N, The code of Civil Procedure, 6th Edn, Vol.1, 2008,
Premier Publ. Co. Allahabad
11 (1990)1 SCC 189; (1990) 4 SCC 633; AIR 1991 SC 909
12 AIR 1968 SC 1165; (1968) 3 SCR 163; AIR 1926 ALL 212
13 AIR 1924 Bom 90; AIR 1960 ALL 573
14 AIR 1951 Kant 23
15 AIR 1924 Oudh 230; AIR 1987 Sc 1260; AIR 1993 AP 147; (2000) 6 SCC 120

Thus, on this ground of abuse of process of the court also the provisions of section 151 can be
invoked.

NATURE AND SCOPE OF SECTION 151

The marginal note of section 15116, itself signifies that by engrafting the provisions of section
151 nothing new has been introduced and in contra to that the section has just confirmed the
pre-existing powers to act ex debito justitiae 17. The pre-existing power over here means the
power inherent in the court by virtue of the duty to do justice between the parties before it.
Even otherwise the court is a court of law and equity and even when equity and justice
demands the court can pass such orders as may be necessary to do complete justice in
absentia of express provisions to do so. Meaning thereby the power has already been vested
with the courts and as such nothing new has been conferred upon the courts by virtue of
section 151 besides expressly saving the inherent powers of the court.
With regard to nature of this section the issue was whether the powers so expressed under
section 151 are in addition or complementary to powers conferred by the codeand whether
they can override the other provisions of the code?
In answer to this issue the Supreme Court of India has by catena of decisions on this point
held that the powers are in addition and complementary to the powers conferred by this code
and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that these powers can override the provisions
of the code18. In other words section 151 is intended to supplement the other provisions of
code and not to evade or ignore them or to invent a new procedure19 and thus inherent power
cannot prevail over statute. Moreover, the only thing which needs to be kept in mind while
exercising the inherent powers is that they when exercised do not come in conflict with what
has been expressly provided for or those exhaustively covering a particular topic or against
the intention of the legislature.
The next issue which needs to be addressed under the caption of scope is that whether the
power conferred by section 151 is a blanket and a plenary one?

16 Saving of inherent powers of court

17 See P Ramanatha Aiyar, concise law dictionary, 3rd Edn, reprint 2009, Lexis
Nexis for meaning; also see AIR 1974 Pat 7; AIR 1976 ALL 150
18 See Manoharlal Chopra v. Seth Hiaralal, AIR 1962 SC 527; Arjun Singh v.
Mohinder Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993; Ram Chand & Sons v. Kanhayalal, AIR 1966
SC 1899
19 See Nandi and Sengupta Justice, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 3rd Edn,
Vol.1, 2009, Kamal Law House at pg 563; also see Bhoj Raj v. Darsu, AIR 1959 MP
52, 57

In answer to this issue one thing is made clear that the exercising of these powers are subject
to certain restrictions as mentioned in above Paras, secondly, this issue can be answered by
addressing the points to be kept in mind while granting relief U/s 151 and they are that firstly,
these powers are in addition and complementary to the powers expressly conferred, secondly,
they are not meant to enable the courts to create rights in parties but to invoke as and when
justice demands20, thirdly, and lastly the most important point to be remembered always is to
look into the contents of the application and the prayer made on such basis and to determine
whether the applicant is entitled for reliefs prayed in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Thus, these above mentioned points are by and large used as guiding factors for
determination of an application U/s 151 of the code. Notwithstanding with these aforesaid
points one thing is made clear that even if all the above issues/factors are answered in
negative even then the court can grant the relief prayed for if the ends of justice and equity
demands because the powers vested U/s 151 are of wide scope and ambit21.

INHERENT POWER WHEN INVOKED

Where the cause of action not barred on the day on which restoration application was
filed, the suit is liable to be restored22.
It is true that O.39 R.2A of the code deals with consequences of disobedience or
breach of injunction, but that does not mean that the court below was not competent
to provide police protection in exercise of its inherent powers U/s 151 of the code.
Civil revision petition dismissed23.
While exercising inherent powers the court can expunge defamatory remarks in the
will. It has been well settled by now because if the person alleged to be defamed will
be left with no recourse for redressal as person who had made the libelous or
scandalous or defamatory statement has since died and no civil or criminal
proceedings can be initiated against such a person. Also the law does not perceive a
situation where a person is rendered remediless24.
Power of restitution not confined to section 144, court can order restitution in
exercise of its inherent powers25.

20 See Shantaram Tukaram Patil v. Dagubai Tukaram, AIR 1987 Bom 182
21 See Mam Raj v. Sabiri devi, AIR 1999 P&H 96
22 See C V Varghese v. Devi Academy, AIR 1999 Ker 185
23 See SK Yousuf & others v. Shaik Madhar Saheb, AIR 2003 AP 44; also see Basus, The
Code of Civil procedure, 10thEdn, Vol.II, 2007, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi

24 See HPS Chawla v. Dr. N.P.S. Chawla and others, AIR 2006 Del 53

Defendants forcibly dispossessed plaintiff in violation of interim injunction, passing

of order of mandatory injunction under sec.151 for restoration of possession to the
plaintiff proper26.
Suits or proceedings having different causes of action can be consolidated under
inherent powers without consent of parties, question of limitation remained
unaffected27.
Court can set aside its order of rejection of plaint28 and in case it is rejected on the
ground of failure to pay the deficit court fee the court can restore the plaint u/s 15129.
Execution petition is dismissed for failure to take steps, sec.151 applies to revoke
order of dismissal and O.21 R.106 is no bar. Dismissal for default on the date of
hearing O.21 R.106 applies30.
There is nothing in order 39 of the code which expressly or by necessary implication
precludes the exercise of inherent power of the court under sec.151 and it is open to
the court to pass a suitable consequential order under section 151 as may be necessary
for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court31.
The court has power to grant interim relief considering the merit of each case and
such relief is subject to adjustment upon final determination in the suit. Such interim
relief is also granted to avoid abuse of process of court32.
Order passed by mistake may be corrected by the same court and the court can do it
even apart from sec.151. Court can set aside the decree under its inherent powers after
passing it where it is a nullity or passed due to mistake by the court33.

25 See K N Krishnappa v. T R G Setty, AIR 1997 Kant 152; see Nandi and
Sengupta Justice, the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, 3rd Edn, Vol.1, 2009, Kamal
Law House at pg 564
26 See AIR 1998 MP 310; Ibid
27 See AIR 1999 Guj 118, ibid at pg 565
28 See Damodar v. Aditya, AIR 1972 Pat 289, ibid at pg 571
29 See Bahadur v. Gopal, AIR 1964 Ori 134
30 See Deo Narayan Goala v. Jagadish Pandit, AIR 1985 Gau 49
31 See Ram Chand & sons Sugar Mills (p) Ltd. V. Kanhayalal, AIR 1966 SC 1899
32 See Rita Kishor v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 2000 Del 417
33 See Surjit v. Munikaram, AIR 1951 All 381; also see ibid at pg 821

If due to absence of advocate no cross examination is made and later advocate appears
and prays for cross examination, the prayer can be granted under inherent powers34.
Under section 151 the jurisdiction to stay an otherwise competent suit is to be
sparingly exercised and only for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of
court and thus when all the evidence is available in D place a suit in C can be stayed
notwithstanding competence of latter court for the ends of justice35.

INHERENT POWER WHEN NOT INVOKED

When there is no case of grant of a particular relief under a particular statute, power under
sec.151 need not be exercised. Where in a case claiming maintenance by a Hindu woman
married to a Hindu Male having a living lawful wedded wife, it cannot be granted U/s 25 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage being void under section 5(1) thereof, and such
reliefs cannot be granted by invoking sec.15136
o A court cannot override the express provision of law but if there is no express
provision in the statute, then the apex court has held that the court can exercise its
power in a suitable case. Hence as per the judgment in the case of Ram Chand & Sons
Sugar Mills (p) Ltd. v. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava37, the power u/s 151 cannot be
exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with or comes into conflict with any of the
powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other provisions of the
code.
o Inherent powers can be exercised when no other remedy is available. Sec.151 hence
cannot be invoked as substitute for appeal, revision or review. In exercise of inherent
powers however, the court cannot override general principle of law. It could only be
for securing ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of court38.
The inherent powers of the court u/s 151 also cannot be invoked to grant a relief beyond
scope of law. For instance if in an auction proceedings once the law has fixed 15 days time to
deposit the full amount of purchase money in the court, such period cannot be extended u/s
15139.

34 Ibid at pg.827
35 Ibid at pg. 829
36 See Abbayolla M Subba Reddy v. Padmamma, AIR 1999 AP 19
37 See AIR 1966 SC 1899
38 See Velayudhan Nair v. Kerela Ksheman Yunik Kuries Pvt. Ltd, Trichur, AIR
1988 Ker 223

CONCLUSION

In the conclusion I, would like to state that after studying the judicial trend/various judicial
pronouncements one thing is made clear by the courts that barring few exceptions the court
has a plenary power to grant reliefs u/s 151 if it is facilitating in the ends of justice or
preventing from the abuse of process of court.
Secondly, if few basics are followed by every court then it would not be difficult or confusing
job to determine the stage as to when the inherent powers should be invoked.
Thirdly, it seems that the ground of having vested with inherent powers can be used as
positive weapon to condone few lapses in procedural aspects of a case by the courts in the
matters where the counsels come and argue on technicalities. Moreover after the case study it
is manifest that the courts are even cautious enough as regards the stage and circumstances
for invoking inherent powers and have strictly followed the principles governing the
provisions of section 151.
Fourthly, as regards the proper use of inherent powers the courts have invoked them in
appropriate cases and yes it does not mean that there are no instances where the courts have
misused it but one can say that there is less misuse and in many cases the Apex court or the
High courts have rectified such misuse and have compensated the parties.
Thus, in my view inherent powers are of utmost importance and are the best example to show
the cautiousness of the legislature to enable all the people have access to justice even under
such circumstances where there is no express provision and a problem or issue at law has
arisen.

39 See United Commercial Bank v. Mani Ram & Ors, AIR 2003 HP 63

See Takwani C K, Civil Procedure, 6th Edn, 2009, Eastern Book Company at pg 729
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2002); Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1992) at
pg 647; Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1994) at pg 732
See Takwani C K, Civil Procedure, 6th Edn, 2009, Eastern Book Company at pg 734; also
see Doabia T S Justice,MLJs Code of Civil Procedure, Vol.2, 13th Edn, 2008; also see Saha
A N, The code of Civil Procedure, 6th Edn, Vol.1, 2008, Premier Publ. Co. Allahabad