INHERENT POWERS OF COURT

INTRODUCTION

• The inherent powers of the court are in addition to the

powers specifically conferred on the court by the Code.
They are complementary to those powers and the court
is free to exercise them for the ends of justice or to
prevent the abuse of the process of the court.
• LEADING CASE - Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR
1962 SC 527.
 INTRODUCTION
• Sections 148 to 153A confer inherent powers in every civil court.
Section 148 enables a court to enlarge time fixed or granted by it for
doing any act.
• Section 149 authorises a court to permit a party to make up deficiency
of court fees on plaint, memorandum of appeal, etc.
• Section 151 is a salutary provision (beneficial). It saves inherent
powers in every court to secure the ends of justice and also to prevent
the abuse of process of the court.
• Sections 152 to 153A empower a court to amend judgments, decrees,
orders and other records arising from accidental slip or omission.
• Section 148A as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1976 is an important provision which permits a person to lodge a
caveat in a suit or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted against
him. It is the duty of the court to issue notice and afford an opportunity
of hearing to a caveator to appear and oppose interim relief sought by
an applicant.
• Section 153B as added by the Amendment Act of 1976 expressly
declares that the place of trial shall be open to the public. The proviso,
however, empowers the Presiding Judge, if he thinks fit, to order that
the general public or any particular person shall not have access to the
court.
 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.
• 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.
• It is based on principle of equity.
• Earlier, there was no such restriction of time, but by Section 13 of the Amendment
Act, 1999, has introduced in section 148, the courts’ power has been limited not to
extend the time beyond 30 days in total.
• The words “not exceeding thirty days in total” have been inserted with a view to
curtail procedural delay caused by any party to the suit or proceeding. Enlargement
of time, whether one-time or phased, cannot exceed 30 days.
 CASES ON SECTION 148
• In Skipper Tower (P) Ltd. V. Skipper Bhawan Flat Buyers’ Association,
(2002) 10 SCC 116, the Court held that it is the discretion of the Court
and the party or his counsel cannot ask for adjournment or extension of
time for any reason whatsoever.
• In Vareed Jacob V. Sosamma Geevarghese & Ors., AIR 2004 SCC 3992,
the Apex Court held that it is the discretion of the Court and the Court can
enlarge the time in exercise of its ancillary power. Similar view has been
reiterated in Salem Advocate Bar Association (III), AIR 2005 SC 3353.
• Sections 148/149 – Enlargement of time – P.K. Palanisamy v. N.
Arumugham & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 173.
• It is obvious from the language of the section, such a power can be
exercised only in a case where a period is fixed or granted by the Court
for doing any act prescribed by this Court.
 S. 148A. Right to lodge a caveat
• The newly added section 148-A provides for a caveat.
Sometimes a party used to obtain an ex parte order on an
application without informing the other party of his intention of
making such an application. Where a party, with a view to
preventing such ex parte orders, being passed intimates to the
Court of his intention to have notice of an intended application
by the adverse party he may be authorised to do so by lodging
a caveat in respect thereof.
 MEANING OF CAVEAT
• THE TERM "caveat" has not been defined in the Code. The word
(caveat) has been derived from Latin which means "beware".
• A caveat is a caution or warning given by a party to the court not to take
any action or grant any relief to the applicant without notice or intimation
being given to the party lodging the caveat and interested in appearing
and objecting to such relief. It is very common in testamentary
proceedings. It is a precautionary measure taken against the grant of
probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, by the person
lodging the caveat.
• The person filing or lodging a caveat is called "caveator". Section 148A of
the Code of Civil Procedure provides for lodging of a caveat.
 OBJECT
• The underlying object of a caveat is twofold:
• firstly, to safeguard the interest of a person against an order
that may be passed on an application filed by a party in a suit
or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted. Such a person
lodging a caveat may not be a necessary party to such an
application, but he may be affected by an order that may be
passed on such application.
• This section affords an opportunity to such party of being heard
before an ex parte order is made; and
• secondly, it seeks to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
 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 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a sort of proviso to that
rule 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.
• Leading Case - Mannan Lal v. Chhotaka Bibi, (1970) 1 SCC 769.
 TRANSFER OF BUSINESS: SECTION 150

• The general power of transfer and withdrawal of cases from one court to
another is contained S. 24.
• This section is intended to meet the difficulty sometimes caused by the
abolition of a court or the transfer of any local area from the jurisdiction
of one court to that of another involving the transfer of the business of
one court to another court.
• 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
powers and discharge same duties conferred or imposed by the Code
upon the transfer court.
• A Full Bench of Kerala High Court had occasion to consider the scope of S. 150 of
the CPC in Packianathan Nadar Maryarul Nadar v. Mathevan Pillai Nanu Pillai,
1956 KLT 810.
• It was observed that the expression ‘where the business of any court is transferred to
any other court’ occurring in S. 150 CPC does not refer to the transfer of work
brought about by the mere change of local jurisdiction but to the transfer of work
brought about by other causes. Such transfer of work may be effected by specific or
general orders of competent authorities or by legislation.
• There may also be specific directions for transfer of all or particular classes of
business in the notification effecting the change of local jurisdiction. S. 150 of the
CPC cannot be invoked for the purpose of enabling transferee court to get jurisdiction
in respect of the pending and past business without express or implied transfer.
 ENDS OF JUSTICE: SECTION 151
• The inherent powers saved by Section 151 can be used to secure the ends of
justice.
• the court can recall its own orders and correct mistakes; can set aside an ex parte
order passed against the party; can issue temporary injunctions in cases not
covered by the provisions of Order 39; can add, delete or transpose any party to a
suit; can set aside illegal orders or orders passed without jurisdiction.
• Section 151 confers the inherent power upon the civil court. It cannot be resorted to
deal with an application for which there is a statutory provision. Thus, it is only in
exceptional circumstances where there is no other remedy available under any
statutory provisions.
• For example, power to grant temporary injunction is under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
of the Code, court cannot exercise the power and grant injunction under Section 151
C.P.C.
 ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT: SECTION 151

• The inherent powers under Section 151 can also be exercised to prevent
the abuse of the process of a court. Such abuse may be committed by a
court or by a party.
• 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 injustice so done to the party must be
remedied on the basis of the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit (an
act of the court shall prejudice no one).
• Similarly, a party to a litigation may also be guilty of an abuse of the
process of the court,
• e.g. by obtaining benefits by practising fraud on the court; or upon a
party to the proceedings; or by circumventing the statutory provisions.
• So, Inherent powers under section 151 can be exercised
by the Court to redress only such a grievance for which
no remedy is provided for under the code of Civil
Procedure. Section 151 is a mere procedural provision
which enables the party to have the proceedings of a
pending suit conducted in a manner that is consistent with
justice and equity.
• Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1
 K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275
• Principles summarized.—
• The scope of S. 151 has been explained and summarized by the Supreme Court as under:−
• (a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on
Courts It merely recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every Court as a necessary corollary
for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what it “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 CPC are not exhaustive, S. 151 recognises and confirms that if CPC 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 provision 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 S. 151, 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 S. 151 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 C.P. 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 S. 151 CPC 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.
 S. 152. Amendment of judgments, decree or orders
• Only clerical and mathematical mistakes apparent can be corrected
under S. 152.
• Section 152 CPC empowers the Court to correct its own error in a
judgment, decree or order arising from any accidental slip or omission.
The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem
gravabit i.e. nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of Court [Niyamat Ali
Molla v. Sonargon Housing Coop. Society Ltd., (2007) 13 SCC 421.]
• But the power to rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors or
accidental slips does not empower the Court to have a second thought
over the matter and to find a better order or decree could or should be
passed. There cannot be reconsideration of merits of the matter to
come to a conclusion that it would have been better and in the fitness of
things to have passed an order as sought to be passed on rectification.
• The section is based on two important principles:
• (i) an act of court should not prejudice any party;47 and
• (ii) it is the duty of courts to see that their records are true and they
represent the correct state of affairs. Samarendra Nath v. Krishna
Kumar, AIR 1967 SC 1440 at p. 1443: (1967) 2 SCR 18.
• Illustrations
• (1) A files a suit against B for Rs 10,000 in court X. The court passes a
decree for Rs 1000 "as prayed". The decree can be amended under
this section.
 S. 153. General power to amend.—
• Section 153, however, confers a general power on the court to amend defects or
errors in "any proceeding in a suit" and to make all necessary amendments for the
purpose of determining the real question at issue between the parties to the suit or
other proceeding.
• Or 6 r 17 is limited to amendment of pleadings, but S. 153 contains a general power
to order any amendment of any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit for the
purpose of determining the real question or issue. A civil court can permit under the
provisions of S. 153 an amendment of the plaint to enable a proper description of the
plaintiffs to appear in it in order to assist the court to determine the real question or
issue between the parties.
• In a case, the mistake in instituting a suit by manager of Hindu Undivided Family
under a business name the firm being unregistered, was allowed to be corrected by
• amendment of the plaint in his own name as manager of undivided Hindu family to
which the business belonged [Jai Jai Ram v. National Building &c, A 1969 SC
1267 ].
• “Proceeding” means “any application to a court of
justice, however made, for aid in the enforcement of
rights, for relief, for redress of injuries, for damages or
for any remedial object”.
• The power under S. 153 can be exercised for amending
execution petition even after expiry of limitation. [M.A.
Rasheed v. T.S. Mahaboob Bash, AIR 2002 NOC 23].
 S. 153A. Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily
dismissed.—

• Section 153A as inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976

provides that where the appellate court dismisses an appeal
summarily under Order 41 Rule 11, the power of amendment
under Section 152 can be exercised by the court of first
instance.
• S. 153A has been inserted to empower the court which had
passed the decree or order appealed against, to amend under
S. 152 the decree or order, when the appeal has been
summarily dismissed.
• Section 153-A has to be read in consonance with Section 152.
 Section 153-B
• In discharging the function as judicial tribunal, courts must generally hear cases in open and must
permit the public admission to the court room.
• Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial vagaries
and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity,
and impartiality of administration of justice.
• But cases may occur where the requirement of the administration of justice itself may make it
necessary for the court to hold the trial in camera and the very purpose of finding truth in a case
would be retarded or even defeated if witnesses are required to give evidence subject to public gaze.
• In such cases it is open to the court in exercise of its inherent power (now it will be in exercise of the
power conferred by this express provision) to hold the trial in camera either partly or fully to discharge
the primary function of the court to do justice in causes brought before it as an exception to the rule all
cases must be heard in open court [Naresh v. S, A 1967 SC 1 ].
• For example - In a suit for damages regarding obscene allegations about the plaintiff, the court can
order trial of suit in camera since the plaintiff and his witnesses will have to give evidence denying the
same allegations [Janaki Ballov Patnaik v. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, A 1989 Orissa 225, 228].
 S. 153B. Place of trial to be deemed to be open Court

• Section 153B as added by the Amendment Act of 1976

expressly declares that the place of trial shall be open to the
public. The proviso, however, empowers the Presiding Judge, if
he thinks fit, to order that the general public or any particular
person shall not have access to the court.
• It makes an express provision as to the holding of proceedings
in open court and as to the power of the Court to hold
proceedings in camera on the lines of S. 327 CrPC.