LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Jamai Of Law (propra)     13 February 2012

Want of inherent jurisdiction i.e. inherent incompetency

Dear experts, Please give your comments




Want of inherent jurisdiction in the context of pecuniary, territorial, subject matter jurisdiction etc etc is understandable.



Additionally "want of inherent jurisdiction" also explicitly means "inherent incompetency"

CPC 1908, codified law of india, in sec 151 says

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




So unless the order under execution suffers from want of inherent jurisdiction, howsoever erroneous the decree of the court may be, it cannot be challenged in execution. To do so there is another forum but not before executing court.



Inherent jurisdiction appears to apply to an almost limitless set of circumstances. There are four general categories for use of the court's inherent jurisdiction:

  1. to ensure convenience and fairness in legal proceedings;
  2. to prevent steps being taken that would render judicial proceedings inefficacious;
  3. to prevent abuses of process;
  4. to act in aid of superior courts and in aid or control of inferior courts and tribunals.

As such, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is a broad doctrine allowing a court to control its own processes and to control the procedures before it. The power stems not from any particular statute or legislation, but rather from inherent powers invested in a court (and to the presiding officer of the same) to control the proceedings brought before it.



My question is:


If the Court itself  has indulged into instances of 'denial of fairness in legal proceedings' and actually participated in abuses of process and which is manifest and patent from records of the suit ............................... 

Then is it not an example of 'inherent competency' of court (by virtue of acts of presiding officer, the one who has passed the order)?




And if the Judgment Debtor manages to show the same to the Executing court above incidents, shouldn't the executing court question the validity of the order under execution over 'want of inherent jurisdiction i.e. 'inherent incompetency'?




Presiding officer of a court is not held guilty for erroneous decisions, but certainly liable to be held guilty of above kind of misconduct (as these actions ultra vires) and judge isn't given any previlege to commit above kind of misoconduct ......................

and hence shouldn't such acts come under the definition of  'want of inherent jurisdiction




My point is that 'If a presiding officer of court can't do justice, to the least he is NOT supposed to do injustice by way of his misconduct and make the adverse party run from pillars to post to challenge it in upper courts'





Please give your comments


 2 Replies

pratik (self working)     13 February 2012

Good question

venkatesh Rao (Retired Government Servant)     15 February 2012

comments follow after reading your post between lines and also what the contemporary law syas.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register