Section 151 of cpc

151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.

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.

it is well settled that recourse to inherent powers in the face of or in conflict with the specific provisions of a statute is not permissible. inherent powers cannot be exercised to nullify the effect of any statutory provision. the Apex court in Vareed Jacob vs Sosamma Geevarghese & ors has held that "if there is express provision covering a particular topic , then section 151 of CPC cannot be applied".

The scope of Section 151 has been explained by the Supreme Court in several decisions which was summarised by the Supreme Court itself in the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 (at page 283 in para 12 of SCC) as follow:

(a) Section 151 CPC is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognises the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is “right” and undo what is “wrong”, that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process.

(b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, Section 151 recognises and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances.

(c) A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or in a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code.

(d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the legislature.

(e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the Code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief.

(f) The power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.

in S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus:

The power which gives the court a discretion to entertain an application must necessarily give the residuary powers to pass other orders ex debito justitiae. Thus it is not possible to construe an order dismissing an application which has itself been dismissed for default as an order dismissing the suit itself so as to be appealable under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (c), C.P.C.

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.

Saving clause:

It is a saving clause and only gives legislative recognition of an age-old and well established principle that every court has inherent power to do that real and substantial justice between the parties for the administration of’ which alone it exists. It does not confer any substantive right on parties but is meant to get over the difficulties arising from rules of procedure.

Section 15l gives no right to a party to make an application. It gives power to the court to pass such orders as it thinks fit. Section 151 is really intended to prevent courts from being rendered impotent by any omission in the Code; but it is not intended to override the main enactment of the law.

The inherent powers are inherent in the court itself and have not been ‘ conferred by the Code; these powers are independent of and in addition to any other powers that the court may exercise under the Code.

The court has an inherent power under S. 151, C.P.C.:

(a) To consolidate suits and appeals including appeals to the Supreme Court;

(b) To postpone the hearing of suits pending the decision of a selected action or where some of the issues are common in another pending suit;

(c) To stay cross-suits on the ground of convenience;

(d) To allow a defence in forma pauperis,

(e) To grant restitution apart from the provisions of S. 144, C.P.C.; Where the court rectifies a mistake in a decree in the exercise of its inherent powers, it has jurisdiction to order restitution of any benefit which may have been received wrongly by the persons who were not entitled to such benefits but for the mistake in the decree;

(f) To add a party or to transpose parties, or where the appeal is filed against dead persons to allow the appellant to add legal representatives of the deceased as parties in a proper case;

(g) To entertain the application of a third person to be made a party;

(h) To punish summarily by imprisonment for contempt’s of court committed by the publication of a libel out of court;

(i) To stay the drawing up of the court’s own orders or to suspend their operation, if the necessities of justice so require;

(j) To stay the carrying out of a preliminary order pending appeal;

(k) To amend decrees by correcting errors in cases not covered by S. 152. The court has an inherent jurisdiction to rectify its own mistake and to do justice between the parties where injustice has been done to them due to the mistake of the court;

(1) To restrain by injunction a person from proceeding with a suit in another court;

(m) To vacate an order obtained by fraud practised upon it or by abusing the process of the court;

(n) To set aside an order made ex parte and without notice to the parties to be affected thereby if a proper case is substantiated;

(o) To remand a suit in a case to which neither Order XLI, Rule 23 nor Order XLI, Rule 25 applies the court, by reason of its inherent jurisdiction, may order remand in cases other than the case specified in Order XLI, Rule 23, if it is necessary for the ends of justice;

(p) To interfere where its decree is being executed in a manner manifestly at variance with the purpose and intent of the decree;

(q) To set aside a compromise decree when the court has been misled into recording it by a statement of the pleader that he was specially authorised to compromise when in fact he was not so authorised;

(r) To stay a suit even when it does not come within S. 10, C.P.C.;

(s) To apply the principles of res judicata to cases not falling within S. 11 of the Code;

(t) To recall and cancel the court’s invalid orders, etc. The court has jurisdiction under S. 151, C.P.C., to restore a suit previously dismissed by it if it thinks that such restoration is necessary in the ends of justice.

A court can entertain an application for restoration of an application dismissed for default under inherent powers. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that it cannot restore that also under S. 151 if it is dismissed for default.

nothing left to add

it is great feeling to see the frequency of responses. Thanks a lot to all of you.

Dear Sir,

Is it allright if a Judge has passed an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendant without the presence of either plaintiffs and defendants

basically no body appeared and judge has given exparte adinterim exparte order 

Does the Judge have such discretionary power to pass an order without hearing any advocate

Regards

can a civil court restrict the movement of the defendant in a suit during the pendancy of the case by invoking Sec.151 CPC? (money suit)