chapter 4 Inherent Powers of Courts SYNOPSIS 1.General . . 2 Inherent power: Meaning - 3. Inherent powers: Scheme 741 742 8. Abuse of process of court: Section 151 ae - 746 742 9. Amendment of judgments, 4. Enlargement of time: Section 148. 743 decrees, orders and other record: 5. Payment of court fees: Section 149. 744 Sections 152, 153-153-A - 747 § Transfer of business: Section 150 .. 745 10, Limitations. = 748 Ends of justice: Section 151 ....... 745 11. Goncluding remarke : 749 1. GENERAL Ever th Y Court is constituted for the purpose of administering justice betw. Parties and, therefore, must be deemed to possess, tan, all such powers as may be necessary to do the een as a necessary cor- right and to undo : ice ; 2 Wrong in the course of administration of justice.’ As stated above, * the i. © of Civil Procedure is a procedural or adjective law and the provisions the Teof f 5 “tther its ends, i in addition to the power. ical ith of the court are in a “ally conferred om the court by the Code. They are complementary to 1 : nerohar SC 5273 19 Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527: 19 Noite ¥. Sharad Murari, 976) 1 SCC 719: AUIL1976 le must be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice and speci upp (1) SCR 4505 State of 11775 Raj Narain y, India . 972 SC 1402 at Pp. 14075 Jaipur Mineral, Deget Gandhi, (1972) 3 SCC 850 at p. 858: AIR 197: velop, 4 2 1 3 Tits Pt. 1, Chap. 1. eae ee es et 359s Mulraj v. Murti Reghunathyi Mai 8 SC igo. See also supra PL 1, 9 SCC 488: AIR 2008 S ae * ¥. Roshan Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 488 jo-tt: AIR 1977 SC 1348 ment Syndicate v. CIT, (1977) 1 SCC 508 at pp. $1018 State 1967) SCR 84; State742 Chapter 4 Inherent Powers of Courts [Part those powers and the court is free to exercise them fo; or to prevent the abuse of the Process of the court.4 The reason is obvious. The provisions of the Code are not exhaustive for the simple reason that the legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation.‘ Inherent powers come to the rescue in such unforeseen circumstances, They can be exercised ex debito justitiae in absence of express provisions in the Code.* As Justice Raghubar Dayal’ rightly states, “The inherent power has not been conferred upon the court; it is a power inherent in the court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it.” Thus, this power is necessary in the interests of justice. The inherent power has its roots in necessity and its breadth is coextensive with the necessity. Sections 148 to 153-A of the Code enact the law relating to inherent powers of a court in different circumstances. r the ends of justice 2. INHERENT POWER: MEANING According to dictionary meaning, “inherent” means “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 privilege”? Inherent powers are thus powers which may be exercised by a court to do full and complete justice between the parties before it. 3. INHERENT POWERS: SCHEME Sections 148 to 153-B of the Code deal with inherent powers of courts. The scheme, however, is not based on intelligible pattern. Sections 148 and 149 provide for grant and enlargement of time while Section 151 preserves inherent powers of courts. Sections 152, 153 and 153-A deal with amend- ments in judgments, decrees orders and in other proceedings. Section 153-B 4. S. 151 of the Code reads as follows: Sasa Saving of inherent powers of Court: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed tnt oF otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such ordets as may be neces for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process ofthe cour See also, Padam Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218 at p. 219% ISCRIS at p. 887; Martohar Lal Chopra v. oy Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527: 1962 Supp (1) com i ee ; Chand e Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanbayalal Bhargava, AIR W366 SC Soy: SCR 565 Mura v. Murti Reghumathyi Mabaray, AIR 1967 SC 1386: (1967) 3 SCR M4 8. Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527: 1962 Supp (1) SCR 450. § Mahendra Manila v. Sushila Mabendra, AIR 1965 SC 364 at p. 39%: 1964) 78 Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, AUR 1962 SC 527: 1962 Supp (1)SCRAS©. a, 7. Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962. SC 527: 1962 Supp (1) SCR 450% State of W.B. v. Indira Debi, (1977) 3 SCC 559. 8. Nabe Sugar Mills v. Union of India, (1976) 1 SCC 120 at p. 123: AIR 1 9. Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2003) Chamber's 20th Century L . 6475 Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1994) at p73 61) 4 SCR 88g at 267% 976 SC 1as2 at Dictionary (1992)vl Enlargement of time: Section 148 743 declares a place of trial to be an open court. Section 150, however, pro- vides for transfer of business. This section could have been placed along, with Sections 22-25 dealing with transfer of cases. Likewise, Section 148-A (lodging of caveat) could have been taken either with Sections 26-32 deal- ing with institution of suits or before Section 148 or after Section 153-B. 4. ENLARGEMENT OF TIME: SECTION 148 Section 148 provides that where any period is fixed or granted by the court for the doing of any act, the court has power to enlarge the said period even if the original period fixed has expired." Where a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction can grant time to do a thing, in the absence of a specific provision to the contra denying or withholding such jurisdiction, would include in its ambit the in The use of the word “may” indicates that the power is discretionary, and the court is therefore, entitled to take into account the conduct of the Party praying for such extension." The principle of equity is that when Some circumstances are to be taken into account for fixing a length of time within which a certain action is to be taken, the court retains to itself the jurisdiction to re-examine the alteration or modification of circumstances which may necessitate extension of time. If the court by its own aet itself the jurisdiction to do so, it would be denying to itself the which, in the absence of a negative provision, it und In the words of Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was), not like the law of the Medes and the Persians”,"* “The danger inherent in passing conditional orders becomes self-evident because that by itself may result in taking away jurisdiction conferred on the court for just decision of the case. The true purport of conditional orders is that such orders merely create something like a guarantee or tion for obedience of the court’s order but would not take away the court's jurisdiction to act according to the mandate of the statute or on relevant equitable considerations if the statute does not deny such consideration." ry curtailing, the jurisdiction to grant time jurisdiction to extend time initially fixed by denies jurisdiction loubtedly enjoys. “conditional orders are As Justice Desai states, ne- Singh v. Sukb Pal Singh, (1989) 4 SCC 403: AIR 1989 SC — —— Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyavoo, (1982) 1 sce 59 at p. era ts Be a - Pp. has Ramesh Bejoy v. Pashupati Rat, (1979) 4 SCC 27 4 4 a EB 9S a 69 at p. 1779; Jogdhayan v. Babu Ram, (1983) 1 SCC 26 at p. TORY a n, , + AIR 199 SC 207 12: Jobri Singh v, Sukh Pal Singh, r98s) 4 SCC 4on at p.4us: AIR ia89 SE 070. 13. Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyavoo, (1982) 1 SCC 199 at p. 168: a a See aoe Pertyakkal v. Dakshyani, (1983) 2 SCC 127 at p. 141: AIR ty SC 428 at p. 444; Jodhaa t= ¥. Babu Ram, (1983) 1 SCC 403. J 3) 16, Mahanth Ran Das ¥. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC BN2 at p. BBX. SCCH ot pe tan {AIR NF 1S. Chinnamarkathian , Ayyavio, (1982) 1 SCC 159, at ps 469 Exchange Charitable Prem Narain v, Visi ae Jogdbayan v, Babu Ram, (1983) 1 SCC 40%; Prem Narain v. Vish a “G744 Chapter 4 Inherent Powers of Courts [Part surutepne% Before extension of time is granted by a court, two conditions must be fulfilled: (i) A period must have been fixed or granted by the court; and Ui) Such period must be for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the Code. The section has no application when the time has not been fixed or granted by the court oF a particular act has not been prescribed or allowed by the Code. The power conferred by the Code on the court is discretionary. The court “may” use it for securing the ends of justice. It cannot be claimed by the party as of right. Before exercising the power, therefore, the court may take into account all the facts and circumstances including the conduct of the applicant." 5. PAYMENT OF COURT FEES: SECTION 149 Section 149 empowers the court to allow a party to make up the deficiency of court fees payable on a plaint, memorandum of appeal, etc. even after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for the filing of such suit, appeal, etc. Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides that no docu. ment chargeable with court fee under the Act shall be filed or recorded in any court of justice, unless the requisite court fee is paid. Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a sort of proviso to that tule by allowing the deficiency to be made good within a period fixed by it. If the proper court fee is not paid at the time of filing of a memorandum of appeal, but the deficit court fee is paid within the time fixed by the court, it cannot be treated as time barred.” Thus, the defective document is ref- rospectively validated for the purposes of limitation as well as court fees." Trust, (1984) 4 SCC 375: AIR 1984 SC 1896; Advocate Bar Assn, (2) v. Union of budisy (2005) 6 SCC 344: AIR 2005 SC 4353. 16, Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyavoo, (1982) 1 SCC sy: AIR 1982 SC 147; Ramesh Beroy © Pashupan Ras, (1979) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1979 SC 17693 Jogdhayan ¥. Babu Ram, 1983} SCC 26: AIK 1983 SC 573 Jobrs Singh v. Sukh) Pal Singh, (1y89) 4 SCC 40x: AIR 1989 SC 2978 1% Mannan Lal », Chhotaka Bibs, (1970) 4 SCC 769 at pp. 275-77 AIR 1974 C154 38. 3378-80; Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882; Mabatsay Gans! nee Kay v. Narendra Nath Sen, AUR 1933 SC 434 at pp. 432580 17 Cat LT 76 tas KET SC) ih Jteal Kubore x. Dhanno Devs, (4973) 2 SCC 3675 AUR 174 SU 39084 India Santo raatute §. Associated Muilders, (y78) 4 SCC 483: AIR 978 SC s4y at pe N4os Mod Vengtbudla v. Seth Chaman Lal, 991) 4 CC yay AIK 99 SC Lats A Nass fa» VAN. Subramanyam, (2012) 7 SCC 7 sh; (4012) 4 SCC (Cv) 4443 Mlaharan v. Searanin, feor4) 4 SCL 263: (2014) 2 SCC Lin) 4355 Tapemder Singh amb s. Gurpreet Ssh (2014) 10 SCC 703: (2015) 1 SCC (Cin) 86; H. Dail Conatouctoons Cu. (P) E24. ¥ Exports Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC oto: (2015) 1 SCC (Cw) 646. ° 1B. Mabatey Ganesh Prasad keg Nene ee he Sen, AUK 1953 SC 433; Mahanth Kam Da ¥- Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882; Jugal Kishore v, Dhanno Devi, (1978) 8 SCC $6vy Ends of justice: Section 151 745 ‘The power, however, is discretionary and should be exercised, judiciously and in the interests of justice.” 6. TRANSFER OF BUSINESS: SECTION 150 Section 150 of the Code declares that where the business of any court is transferred to any other court, the transferee court will exercise same pow- ers and discharge same duties conferred or imposed by the Code upon the transfer court. 7. ENDS OF JUSTICE: SECTION 151 The inherent powers saved by Section 151 can be used to secure the ends of justice.2 Thus, the court can recall its own orders and correct mistakes;”! can set aside an ex parte order passed against the party;?? can issue tempo- rary injunctions in cases not covered by the provisions of Order 395” can add, delete or transpose any party to a suit; can set aside illegal orders or orders passed without jurisdiction; can revive execution applications; tan take notice of subsequent events;2” can hold trial in camera or pro- hibit excessive publication of its proceedings;* can allow amendments of pleadings; can correct errors and mistakes; can expunge remarks made 1D, Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Lid. v. Union of India, (1991) x SCC 174: Mahasey Ganesh Prasad v. Narendra Nath, ‘AIR 1953 SC 4333 K.C. Skaria v. Govt. of State of Kera 2 SCC 285: AIR 2006 SC 81. 20. of Kerla aeepra Serb Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527: 1962 Supp (1) SCR 4503 Raj Soap Fact SIP. Shantharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1449: (1965) 2 SCR Boo; Naresh Shridhar v. State Jetory v SP SHR 967 SC Eat PB (1966) 3 SCR 7443 Jaipur Mineral Development of Maharashtra AIR 2957 £6 Jog at pp stot: AUR 1977 SC 8348 at 138% ‘Mulray Syndicate v. CIT, 0977) Ala age SC 1386: (1967) 3 SCR Ba Nat Servic Soe v. Murti Reghunatl uf "AIR. 1968 SC 1165 at p. 1178: aye) 3 SCR 163; All Bengal Lid. v. K.C. Alexander, AUR 19 ing Singh, (2007) 11 SCG 37g: AIR 2007 SC 186: Excise Licensees’ Ass”. V- agi iv) 665 (Principles oat) 12 SCC 278: (2011) 3 SCC (CH) 6 Serena ae beri Polaris 4012) Pay Gopt Krishan, (2013) 1 SCC 296: (04) “ammarised); see also, Ra” 36-27: 1953 SCR 136 a1, SEIS 197 sg Kissen, AUR. 1953 SC 23 1600 aT oe ee 2a, Keshardeo w. RUN RN. Baneriee, AL 1938 SC 79 SC 0 3 Mach at re mde Di ar GC. AI ae . Saila Bala Dassi v. Nir i aa Ears eR sys Matra ¥- 27a. at p. 275: (1961) ¥S 6; ATIC 1979 SE HIN. CR 84. i, 0 se ros at PP. 1177-78 (ATI): 16 BO SIRE ay raed Kat aT im et Ss Sgt A ar 27. Nair Service Society L4d. ¥) i, praband Karin abba, Shikharchand Jain ¥- Digs” carp. 11 (AIR) 1967 C4 28. Neves Shidar w state of ManaTI AN 7 ee atenaaen 28 ee ira discussion, 5€¢ S07 A Iyer, AIK rescue tee 20. anata er Mapa Ramat RIT | 1206; Samarendra Nath ¥- KY746 Chapter 4 Inherent Powers of Courts [Part against a judges” can extend time for payment of court fees: can extend ‘inte to pay arrears of rent; can restore the suit and rehear it on merits; can review its orders, ete. What would mect the ends of justice would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and ata requirements of justice." 8. ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT: SECTION 151 ‘The inherent powers under Section 151 can also be the abuse of the process of a court.” § court or by a party. Where a court employs a procedure in doing something which it never intended to do and the! re is miscarriage of justice, there is an abuse of process by the court itself. The injustice so done te the party must be remedied on the basis of the doctrine actus curiae neminen grav- abit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one).3* Similarly, a party to a use of the process of the court, e.g. by obtaining isi ‘aud on the court;?? or upon a party ting the statutory Provisions; or by ity of proceedings; or by instituting ictics;* or by introducing scandalous exercised to prevent uuch abuse may be committed by a a 7 SC 903 at pp. 907-01 " Ganka Das, AIR 1961 SC #822 (1961) 3 SCR 763. a critnamarkathian v. Ayyavoo, ipa) 1 eC 159: AIR 1982 SC 137. 34. Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v, CIT, (1977) 1 SCC 508: AIR 1977 SC 1348; Lachi a Tewari ¥. Director of Land Records, 1984 Supp SCC 431: AIR 1984 SC 41. + Shivdeo Singh v, State of Punjab, MR 1963 SC 1909 at p, 1911. See also, Author's Lectures pe eiministrative Law (2008) Lecture Vit, 36. Per Gajendragadkar, CJ. in Naresh Shri Y. State of harashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 at p. tise) Sen vidhar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 19 Hanohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, Al ears Reale Sos M Mg tth Hiralal, MIR 1962 SC 527: 1962 Supp (1) SCR 4505 Rai P Factory v. §.P. Shantharaj, AMR 1965 SC 1449 at p. 1450; Rat Chand case, AIR 1966 SC Hyg at P. 19023 Naresh Shridhar v, State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 at p. 11; Jaipur Urdicate case, (1977) 1 SCC sok at P. 510: AIR 1977 SC 1348 at p. 1350. : 38. Kanai Law Shaw y. Mhathu Shaw, Civil Appeal Now 51 of 1963, decided on 3-5-1965 (SC) (untep); Forasol v. ONG 984 Supp SCC 263 at pp. 295-96: AIR 1984 SC 241 at pp. 259 39, Praga tailed discussion, see spit “Restitution”, Chap. 2. + Action % Dadu Dayal Mahasabl Sukhdev Arya, (1990) 1 SCC 189; U.P. Juntor —- pantie v Dr. B, Sheetal Namdwann aoa 4 G 633r'AIR tg9u SC goa: Balcyon bey v. Deonandan Singh, 1968 SCD 275. Pat 40, Dail Dayal Sukbdev Arya, (1990) 1 SCC 19; Sadho Saran v, Anant Rai, AIR 1923 Pat 445: IER (1923) 2 Pat 754, bon 41. Manilal Mobantal v, ‘ardar Sayed Abmed, AUR 1954 SC s49: (195s) 1 SCR cn {gihna v, New Heerbhum Cou Co Lite RMe 1960 SC 297 a wp. 299-300" [ng6o) SCR sai ilanohar Lal Chopra v, Seth Hiralal, Ale ives So ser vote Soon Ly eruaiee Indy Jererel «. ONGC, s9i4 Sunp8ce ats; tomes Crem tint tid. & Nan rial Bank Ltd (1983) 4 SCC 625: AIR to SC raps 968) 42. Nair Service Society Lid. v. KC. Alexander, MR 1968 SG 1465 at pp. 1177-78: (1968) 3 SCR 165. Babs Jethaboai Versy and Go. v. Amarchand Madhavji and Co., AIR ayag Wom 90: Mula Kam, AMC i960 All 575 at pp. $75.96, (1967) 1 SCR 454. 43."l Amendment of judgments, etc.: Sections 152, 153-153-A 747 or objectionable matter in proceedings;** or by trying to secure an undue javantage over the opposite party," etc. 9. AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS, DECREES, ORDERS AND OTHER RECORDS: SECTIONS 152, 153-153-A. Section 152 enacts that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees of orders arising from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion (s#o motu) or on the application of any of the parties.*® The section is based on two impor- tant principles: (i) an act of court should not prejudice any party;** and (i) itis the duty of courts to see that their records are true and they represent the correct state of affairs.” In the words of Bowen, L.J., “Every court has inherent power over its own records so long as those records are within its power and that it can set right any mistake in them. An order even when passed and entered may be amended by the court so as to carry out its intention and express the meaning of the court when the order was made.” It can be done at any time.*! Illustrations (1) A files a suit against B for Rs 10,000 in court X. The court passes 2 decree for Rs ro00 “as prayed”. The decree can be amended under this section. (2) A files a suit against B for Rs 10,000 and interest in court X. The court ote dee soen ooe seen applies to amend ii decree by adding a prayer for payment of interes! ‘The decree cannot be amended under this section. Tf aggrieved by the decree, A may file an appeal or application for review. d by the Amendment Act of 1976 provides that Section 153-A. as inserted’ 0Y s an appeal summarily under Order 41 where the appellate cour SC na60; V, Ramakrishna v. N. Saronns 2 vs Mabader Channabasappa, (2000) © 44. Shankerlal v. Ramniklal, AIR 195! 45, Yasin Ali v. Ali Babadury Kumar Didwartiay (2008) *4 s AIR 1993 AP 147; Raval 1966 SC 1047 at P1049: 46, SOE 139 AIK 2008 erie. v. State of Oi a 40 P1443: (1967 Master Comatenctn Cee Kimani al Land Avastin OR SCR 99; Samarendra Nat $7 roy SC 40995 Darevtor (Laid 18; Ram Kumar V- mon di I, ‘maraddi Venkateara 1, (2006) 4250 warn Go ie amare ei anchinade GOK yy? OL ue a oy, 190.07: AME 1970 SC 70 Bi “ ) 29 SCC 262! Dhani Bist 47. Bishnu Charan Das ¥- of UoPay 969) ® 48, Talerpur Sugar C9. Lids SEE Gy foe ATR ayer at pp. 75-76 See alee eM Kumar pdra Nath ROG aye v96e Supp (1) 49. Samarendra Nath v- K AIR 194 f C: ei (3885) 30. CBP aya Nilakanta 1s 50. Mellor v. Swire ORES) TD Iyer ¥ SC 14403 L. Jan SCR 206. SL. Ss. 1525 153+