Firstly, this section does not confer any powers but only indicates that there is a power to make such orders as may be necessary for achieving the ends of justice and also to prevent abuse of processes of the court. The court is not powerless to grant relief when the situation so demands because the powers vested with the court are of wide scope and ambit [1].

Secondly, the discretion vested in the court is dependent upon various circumstances which the court has to consider. The parties to a suit should note that this discretionary power under Section can also be exercised on an application filed by the party.

Thirdly, the power is not to be exercised when there are specific provisions in the Code to deal with the case. In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [3]it was held that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders ex debito justitiae as of right is affirmed by Sectionbut that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the CPC.

Inherent jurisdiction must be exercised, subject to the rule that, if the Code does contain specific provisions, such provisions should be followed, and the inherent jurisdiction must not be invoked. Fourthly, the CPC does not explicitly speak of consolidation of suits, but the same can be done by courts through Section Unless there exists a specific provision which bars the same, the civil court has the inherent power to make such orders.

This consolidation saves parties from multiple proceedings, delay in orders and reduces expenses like court and lawyer fees. All in all, it is in the parties' favor! Fifthly, the inherent powers cannot be used to reopen settled matters. In the case of Nain Singh v Koonwarjee [4]the petitioners had filed an application under O 21 r 90 of the CPC, to set aside an auction sale. The court, while rejecting the application, said that it could not exercise its inherent powers if the order can be challenged under the provisions of the CPC.

section 151 cpc

Sixthly, an appeal as well as a second appeal, have been held, by the High Court of Madras to lie from an order made under this section, in execution or for restitution [5]. But the Patna High Court has held otherwise [6]. But, according to the Amendment made to Section 2 2an order made in execution, though made under Sectionis no longer a decree and hence no appeal would lie.

Hence, at present, no appeal for execution lies, though appeal for restitution still exists. Seventhly, unfortunately, the review petition against a consent decree does not lie under this section.

If the evidence suggests that one party has defrauded the other party, the only remedy left for the party who has been defrauded is to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. But it is a different situation altogether if it is proved that either party defrauded the court, then the review petition will be available or maintainable under Section Lastly, in the case of Bahadur Pradhani v Gopal Patelthe plaint of a money suit was rejected for non-payment of court fee within the time granted by the court.

The plaintiff filed a petition under this section for the restoration of the suit. It can be safely concluded that the power of the court under Section is not a substantive provision. It saves the inherent power of the court which is based on the principle of ex debito justitae, i. They are not conferred but are deductible which is why it is not a substantive provision. It exists to prevent abuse of the processes of the court and to meet the ends of justice.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More. Section of the Civil Procedure Code. Discretionary Power Secondly, the discretion vested in the court is dependent upon various circumstances which the court has to consider.

Cannot Reopen Settled Matters Fifthly, the inherent powers cannot be used to reopen settled matters.Supreme Court in Om Prakash Marwaha v. Applying the well-known maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, that an act of court should do no harm to a litigant, this Court held that the mistake should be rectified by the Court and the parties relegated to the position on the date when the mistake occurred.

Fourthly, application for condonation of delay would go along with the same application under section of CPC. There is no limitation of filing CPC but it has to be filed at the first available opportunity.

A application can be filed under cpc. The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section C. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the Decree obtained by fraud.

Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the Constitution of the Tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour.

This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court's business". Even though there may be any limitation to highlight such issues before court, you may always mention that you came to know about this fraud played on court very recently. Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers. Schedule a minute call with a top-rated lawyer. Hire a lawyer for a fixed price. Send a legal notice, review a legal document, etc. Legal advice and legal services. Section CPC limitation to recall order Respected Advocates, i want to file an application under section of CPC, in District Court, to recall the order, obtained by practising fraud upon District Court by opposite party in Decemberwhich i came to know before a month ago, therefore you are requested to reply and advice me for my below questions.

Is there any limitation to file recall application under section of cpc for the reason mentioned above. Mohammed Mujeeb. Applying the well-known maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, that an act of court should do no harm to a litigant, this Court held that the mistake should be rectified by the Court and the parties relegated to the position on the date when the mistake occurred 2 Inherent power to recall its own order vesting in tribunals or courts and set aside an orders:- i obtained by fraud practised upon the court, ii when the court is misled by a party, or iii when the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party.

Ajay Sethi. Firslty, there always be a limitation period for filing he appeal against any order. Secondly, but limitation strata from the time when you are aggrieved by it.Search here. Toggle navigation. Mar 12 HC. Lingammal and 7 Others Vs.

Periappappa Lingammal and Another. Dec 04 HC. Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Nagarajan and or Feb 19 HC. Muthulingam Vs. Gangai Ammal. Oct 17 HC. Purapabutchi Rama Rao Vs.

Purapa Vimalakumari. Sep 29 HC. Jaswinder Kaur and ors. Jatinder Pal Singh Etc. Dec 13 HC. Puri Vs. Chander Shekar. Feb 06 HC. Subbarayudu Vs. Jaganmohan Reddy and anr.

section 151 cpc

Dec 10 HC. State of Bihar Vs. Phatik Mandal and ors. Nov 08 SC. State of West Bengal and ors. Indira Debi and anr. Sep 11 HC. Jagannath Poddar Vs. Prabhu Dayal Satyanarayan and ors. Civil Revision Nos 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 and of P K Deb J 1 These 16 Revision petitions have been preferred by the State of Bihar against the Order dated 16 7 passed in LA Execution Case Nos 56 of 9 of 57 of 14 of 55 of 47 of 48 of 51 of 50 of 52 of 13 of 58 of 8 of and 54 of rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner as judgment debtor in all the above Execution cases under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the exe.Before understanding amendment of pleadings, there is a need to explain what is Pleadings and its Rule.

Pleadings are the statements which are the backbone of every civil suit. No civil suit will come into existence if there are no Pleadings. Plaint is the statements filed by the Plaintiff in a Civil Court to prove his claim whereas Written statements are the statements defined in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC which states that defendant should file written statements in 30 days from the date of issuance of the summons.

Written statements are filed by the defendant for his defense. Pleadings are those material facts which helps plaintiff to define the cause of action and defendant to establish his defense in a civil suit. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

The Provision related to Amendment of Pleadings gives power to the civil court to allow parties to alter, amend or modify the pleadings at any stage of proceedings 1.

Provision for Amendment of pleadings has been stated in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of civil procedure. But the court will allow amendment only if this amendment is necessary to determine the controversy between the parties. The purpose of this provision is to promote ends of justice and not to defeat the law. The Proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 states that court will not allow application of amendment after the trial has been commenced unless court comes to the conclusion that party did not raise the relevant facts before the commencement of the trial.

This proviso gives discretionary power to the court to decide on the application of pleadings after the commencement of the Trial. An institution of the suit is necessary for applying for amendment of pleadings.

Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code

This provision was deleted by the Civil Procedure Amendment Code, This omission was made to ensure consistency in new changes in the civil code. But later, it was restored by the Civil Procedure Amendment Code, This amendment has given power to the court to allow application of the pleadings with some limitation.

In the case of Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja 4the court stated that any person who is applying for the amendment of pleadings should state that what is to be altered, amended or modified in the original pleadings.

Also, this amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments of pleadings help the parties to correct its mistakes in the pleadings.Velusamy v. Palanisamy as follow: a Section CPC is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. The breadth of such power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances. 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 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code. 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.

Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

Arbitration Law 3. Australian Law 1. Civil Laws Computer laws Constitutional Law Consumer Law 5. Criminal Law Employment laws 5. Entertainment Law 1. Environmental laws Family Law General Practice Health Care Law Immigration Law Insurance laws 4.Post a Comment. Sunday, 20 April Section CPC is not a substantive provision that confers right to get any relief of any kind.

Section CPC is not a substantive provision that confers the right to get any relief of any kind. It is a mere procedural provision which enables a party to have the proceedings of a pending suit conducted in a manner that is consistent with justice and equity.

The court can do justice between the parties before it. Similarly, inherent powers cannot be used to re-open settled matters. The inherent powers of the Court must, to that extent, be regarded as abrogated by the Legislature. A provision barring the exercise of inherent power need not be express, it may even be implied. Inherent power cannot be used to restrain the execution of a decree at the instance of one who was not a party to suit.

Such power is absolutely essential for securing the ends of justice, and to overcome the failure of justice. The Court under Section CPC may adopt any procedure to do justice, unless the same is expressly prohibited.

Section 151 CPC

The consolidation of suits has not been provided for under any of the provisions of the Code, unless there is a State amendment in this regard. Thus, the same can be done in exercise of the powers under Section CPC, where a common question of fact and law arise therein, and the same must also not be a case of misjoinder of parties. The non-consolidation of two or more suits is likely to lead to a multiplicity of suits being filed, leaving the door open for conflicting decisions on the same issue, which may be common to the two or more suits that are sought to be consolidated.

Non- consolidation may, therefore, prejudice a party, or result in the failure of justice. Inherent powers may be exercised ex debito justitiae in those cases, where there is no express provision in CPC. The said powers cannot be exercised in contravention of, or in conflict with, or upon ignoring express and specific provisions of the law. See: B. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.

Civil Appeal No. In the aforesaid judgments, the courts below have held, that the relationship of a landlord and tenant did not exist between respondent nos. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The dispute pertains to the ownership of shop no. Shyam Sunder died in the year Thus, Radhey Shyam created a life interest in the property in favour of Janki Bibi 2ndby way of an oral Will, which further provided that she would have the right to adopt a son only with the consent of Mohan Lal, the grand son of Har Dayal.

Gopi Krishan, the great grand son of Mohan Lal, claims to have been adopted by Janki Bibi 2ndwith the consent of Mohan Lal, and as regards the same, a registered document was also prepared.

Gopi Krishan filed a Regular Suit No. He stated all this, while claiming himself to be her adopted son.

Janki Bibi 2nd contested the suit, denying the aforesaid adoption. However, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated The suit shop was under the tenancy of one Shri Badri Vishal. Ram Kumari, wife of Shri Badri Vishal, vide registered sale deed dated 7.It was there even when men were uncivilized and it is even today when we have entered into much-sophisticated world.

The presence of law is made much known to us with the existence of courts.

Application for Rejection of Plaint under Code of Civil Procedure

The Courts existed when there was no written statue on the fundamental principle to do justice and to peacefully settle the matter.

They are not as old as law but law got recognition by courts only. They hold a very high position in society by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties.

Every court is constituted for the purpose of administering justice between the parties and, therefore must be deemed to possess all such powers as may be necessary to do the right and to undo the wrong in the process of administering the justice.

The Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural or adjective law and the provisions thereof must be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice and further its ends since the basic function of the courts is to do justice rather than focusing on the procedural part of the parties. The Code of Civil Procedure acknowledges the powers along with limitations on the courts but there are some powers which are vested in the court but not prescribed in the code and those are the Inherent powers.

Inherent powers of the court sec. 151 CPC -- न्यायालय की अंतर्निर्मित शक्तियां CPC

The inherent powers of the court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred by the code on the court.

They are complementary to those powers. The court is free to exercise them for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The reason is obvious. The provisions of the court are not comprehensive for the simple reason that the legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible surroundings which may arise in future litigations. Inherent powers come to the rescue in such unforeseen circumstances. They can be exercised ex debito justitiae in the absence of provisions in the code.

But those need to be exercised with due care and not arbitrary. It means 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. Power to make up deficiency of Court-fees:- Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court-fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance.

Transfer of Business:- Save as otherwise provide, where the business of any Court is transferred to any other Court, the Court to which the business is so transferred shall have the same powers and shall perform the same duties as those respectively conferred and imposed by or under this Code upon the Court from which the business was so transferred.

Saving of inherent powers of the code :- Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of the justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders:- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

General powers to amend:- The Court may at any time and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit, and all necessary amendments shall be made of the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.

Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily dismissed:- Where an Appellate Court dismisses an appeal under rule 11 of Order XLI, the power of the Court to amend, under sectionthe decree or order appealed against may be exercised by the Court which had passed the decree or order in the first instance, notwithstanding that the dismissal of the appeal has the effect of confirming the decree or order, as the case may be, passed by the Court of the first instance.

In the cases where the C. C does not deal with, the Court will exercise its inherent power to do justice. If there are specific provisions of the C.

section 151 cpc

C dealing with the specific issue and they expressly or by basic implication, then the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked as inherent powers itself means those which are not specified in C. The section confers on the judges to make such orders that may be necessary to make justice achievable.

The Power can be invoked to support the provisions of the code but not to override or evade other express provisions as C. In the absence of any special circumstances which amount to the abuse of the process of the Court, it cannot grant a relief in exercise of its inherent power when the justice can be served by another remedy is available to the party concerned provided by the Code.

Specific powers have to be conferred on the Courts for passing such orders. It had opined that the Court had an undoubted power to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Commissioner of I.


Comments

  1. Link

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *