Inherent Powers of the Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure: Scope, Application and Limitations

Inherent Powers of the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code), essentially procedural and adjective in nature, is an instrument designed to provide the means by which rights are enforced, and not to create an impediment to their realization. While the Code provides a comprehensive framework of procedural rules, it is not possible for the legislature to foresee every situation that may arise in the course of judicial proceedings. Therefore, the Code recognises that courts must possess certain inherent powers to act “ex debito justitiae” – to do the right and to prevent miscarriage of justice.

The very existence of a court presupposes administration of justice and therefore the possession of certain powers indispensable to it. No judicial institution can function effectively if it is confined solely to what is explicitly conferred upon it by statute, for law, however elaborate, is never exhaustive. The inherent power of a court, therefore, is not a matter of legislative conferment but a necessary attribute of judicial authority. They authorize the court to remedy procedural gaps, to prevent the abuse of its process, and to ensure that equity prevails over technicality.

The jurisprudential foundation of inherent powers thus lies in the belief that justice is the ultimate end of all legal process, and where the machinery of law is inadequate, the conscience of the court must intervene.

Statutory Basis

The law relating to the exercise of such powers is scattered across Sections 148 to 153B of the Code. These provisions either directly confer discretionary powers on the court or recognize its inherent authority in specific situations.

Inherent Powers of the Court

Section 151 does not confer new powers; rather, it recognizes and preserves powers inherent in every court of record, flowing from its very constitution as a judicial authority. The section acts as a residuary source of jurisdiction, enabling the court to do real justice where no express provision of the Code applies.

To Secure the Ends of Justice

The first limb of Section 151 preserves the court’s power “to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.” This expression encapsulates the broad objective of all judicial functioning — that no act of the court should result in injustice merely because the procedural framework is silent or inadequate.

The phrase “ends of justice” is not susceptible of precise definition; it is contextual and situational, depending upon the facts of each case. The court’s inherent powers are thus meant to fill procedural lacunae and enable it to act ex debito justitiae, out of a debt owed to justice itself.

Judicial Application of Section 151

The courts have invoked Section 151 in a variety of circumstances, such as:

• Recalling or modifying orders passed under mistake or misapprehension.
• Setting aside ex parte orders or decrees where injustice would otherwise result.
• Granting temporary injunctions in cases not strictly covered by Order XXXIX.
• Reviving execution applications or suits dismissed for default.
• Permitting amendment of pleadings or correction of clerical errors.
• Expunction of improper or scandalous remarks from records.

These examples reflect that the provision is flexible yet judicially disciplined, always directed towards substantial justice rather than procedural advantage.

Rationale Behind Inherent Powers

The rationale behind this power lies in the complementary role it plays to the express provisions of the Code. Section 151 functions as its safety valve. It enables the court to prevent injustice where strict adherence to procedure would lead to inequitable results.

To Prevent Abuse Of The Process Of The Court

The second branch of Section 151 empowers courts to act “to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.” The term abuse of the process of the court is not explicitly defined in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) but is understood through judicial interpretation and legal literature.

The term “abuse of process” refers to any misuse of the judicial machinery by a litigant, resulting in injustice or distortion of fair procedure. The concept of abuse of process includes actions that are frivolous, vexatious, or obstructive. The court will assess whether the conduct of a party constitutes an abuse based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Section 151 thus serves a dual remedial and protective function. It operates both as a shield against injustice and as a sword against procedural misuse. The inherent powers preserved under this section ensure that courts remain masters of their own procedure and guardians of justice. Yet, the guiding principle remains constant: such powers are to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only where their exercise is imperative to achieve justice or prevent injustice.

Case Study: Vineeta Jamwal v. Col (Retd.) Vijay Singh

In Vineeta Jamwal v. Col (Retd.) Vijay Singh^[1], the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed the wide ambit of the court’s inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), emphasizing that such powers remain unaffected by the specific provisions of Order 18 Rule 17.

The case arose from a suit for mandatory injunction over possession of land, where after substitution of legal heirs and filing of new witness affidavits, the plaintiff sought permission to cross-examine the defendants’ witnesses following dismissal of his earlier challenge before the High Court. The trial court allowed the application, prompting the defendants to object, contending that recalling witnesses for cross-examination violated the limits of Order 18 Rule 17.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, relying on Ram Rati v. Mange Ram, clarified that while Order 18 Rule 17 enables the court to recall a witness for clarification, Section 151 confers a residual and inherent jurisdiction to act ex debito justitiae, for the ends of justice, allowing reopening of evidence or cross-examination even after closure of trial stages.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s request was not an attempt to fill evidentiary lacunae but an exercise of his legitimate right to cross-examine, which had been delayed due to pending proceedings. Upholding the trial court’s order, the High Court underscored that the inherent power under Section 151 is essential to prevent miscarriage of justice and cannot be curtailed by procedural technicalities under Order 18 Rule 17.

Limits Of Inherent Power

While the scope of inherent powers is broad, it is not unlimited. Courts cannot exercise such power in conflict with express provisions of the Code; recreate remedies that the legislature has deliberately omitted or restricted; overrule substantive law; or extend limitation periods contrary to statute. Thus, Section 151 is a supplement to, not a substitute for, the express provisions of the Code.

Case Study: In My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society vs B. Mahesh

In In My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society vs B. Mahesh^[2], arising out of the long-pending Asman Jahi Paigah property dispute, the plaintiff had originally filed a suit for partition in 1953, which culminated in a preliminary-cum-final decree passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1959.

Decades later, a cooperative society (the appellant) claimed rights over part of the property through an Assignment Deed executed by a predecessor-in-interest and successfully obtained a final decree in its favour from a Single Judge. Subsequently, the respondents challenged this decree before a Division Bench, alleging that the appellant had suppressed material facts. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, recalled the final decree on the ground of fraud and concealment.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking Section 151 when specific remedies such as appeal, review, or revision were available under the Code. The Court agreed, holding that the inherent power under Section 151 is residuary and procedural, not substantive in character. It cannot be employed to unsettle or reopen concluded issues, nor can it substitute statutory remedies expressly provided under the CPC.

The Court reaffirmed that even a wrong decree passed by a competent court remains binding until duly set aside through appropriate legal channels. Section 151 may be invoked only when no express provision exists to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, not as a means to bypass procedural safeguards. Since the respondents could have sought leave to appeal as affected parties, the invocation of Section 151 was held to be inappropriate.

Relationship With Other Sections

Although Section 151 is the principal provision, other sections complement it by granting specific discretionary powers which also aim at ensuring justice.

Enlargement Of Time (Section 148 CPC)

Section 148 confers upon the court a discretionary procedural power to extend the time it has earlier fixed for the performance of an act. The discretion is wide, yet not unregulated; it must be exercised to further justice, not to frustrate the object of timely adjudication. The provision thus operates as a statutory recognition of the court’s inherent power to manage its own procedure. It supplements the general power preserved under Section 151 CPC.

Prerequisites For Invoking Section 148

• A period must have been fixed or granted by the court: The section presupposes that the time originally emanated from a judicial order, not from the statute itself.
• The act must be one prescribed or allowed by the Code: The section is confined to procedural acts within the framework of the CPC, such as filing written statements, payment of costs, or deposit of process fees.

In absence of either of these conditions, the provision cannot be invoked.

Case Study: Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India

The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India^[3] clarified the scope of this discretion following the 1999 Amendment to the CPC, which introduced a thirty-day ceiling on extensions. The Court held that this limit must be interpreted in a pragmatic rather than mechanical manner. In the interest of justice, the court retains the power to grant further extension where warranted by circumstances.

However, the Court cautioned that this inherent flexibility applies only to time granted by the court for procedural acts and not to statutory periods of limitation governed by the Limitation Act, which operate independently and are not susceptible to judicial extension under Section 148.

Rationale Behind Section 148

The rationale underlying Section 148 lies in the recognition that procedure is the handmaid of justice. The law contemplates human error, unforeseen circumstances, and genuine inability to comply within rigid timeframes. Hence, when a court possesses the jurisdiction to fix a period for doing an act, the jurisdiction to enlarge such time flows as a necessary corollary.

Make Up Deficiency in Court Fees

Section 149 of the Code empowers the court to permit a party to make up the deficiency in court fees payable on a plaint, memorandum of appeal, or similar proceeding, even after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for such filing. This provision confers a discretionary remedial power on the court, functioning as an equitable relaxation of the otherwise mandatory requirement under Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which prohibits the filing or acting upon any document insufficiently stamped with court fees.

Essential Components for Section 149

For the exercise of this power, certain essential components must exist:

• A document chargeable with court fee, such as a plaint, memorandum of appeal, or application, must have been presented before the court;
• there must be a deficiency in the fee prescribed by the law in force at the time of filing;
• and the deficiency must be made good within the period fixed by the court, in the exercise of its discretion.

Once these conditions are fulfilled and the deficit is paid within the permitted time, the document is deemed valid retrospectively, that is, it takes effect from the date of its original presentation, not from the date of payment of the deficiency.

Rationale and Purpose

The rationale behind Section 149 rests on the primacy of substantial justice over technical compliance. The purpose of court fees is fiscal, not punitive; it is designed to regulate access to courts and generate revenue for the State, not to defeat rights on mere procedural grounds. Hence, the legislature, recognizing the possibility of inadvertent deficiency or financial difficulty, has empowered the court to condone such defects in the interest of justice. This provision, therefore, serves as a proviso to Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, tempering its rigidity.

Limitations and Judicial Checks

While the power is wide, it is not unbounded. The court must ensure that:

• the deficiency is not deliberate or motivated by lack of bona fides;
• the extension of time does not cause prejudice to the opposite party;
• the discretion is exercised in accordance with judicial conscience, not as indulgence.

The court may refuse the benefit of Section 149 where a party persistently neglects to pay the proper fee or uses the provision to delay proceedings.

Amendment of Judgments, Decrees, Orders, and Other Records

Sections 152 to 153-A of the Civil Procedure Code embody the procedural mechanism through which courts ensure that their records accurately reflect their intended decisions and the true state of proceedings. Section 152 empowers a court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions in judgments, decrees, or orders, either suo motu or on a party’s application. The rationale rests on two equitable principles: first, that an act of court should prejudice no party, and second, that courts must ensure their records speak the truth. As stated by Bowen, L.J., every court has inherent authority over its own records and may amend them to carry out its original intention, even after an order has been entered. This power is limited to rectifying inadvertent errors and cannot be invoked to alter the substance or merits of a judgment. The correction may be made by the court of first instance and can be exercised at any stage to reflect the true judicial intent.

Section 153, on the other hand, extends a broader and general power to the court to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit, enabling it to make necessary alterations to determine the real issue between the parties. This provision ensures procedural flexibility and guards against technical failures defeating substantive justice. In contrast to Section 152, which is confined to formal amendments in judgments or decrees, Section 153 encompasses errors in the entire course of litigation. Section 153-A further supplements this by permitting the amendment of decrees or orders where an appellate court confirms the judgment of the lower court, allowing corrections even after appeal. Together, these sections reflect the procedural philosophy that justice should not be hampered by inadvertent or technical errors, and that courts retain continuing control to perfect their records in alignment with their true intent.

Quick Reference: Sections 152–153A

Conclusion

Inherent powers invested in Courts through the provisions of the Code are very wide and extensive so as to ensure justice by rendering full and complete justice between the parties before them and thereby avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, their exercise must remain judicious, limited, and consistent with express provisions, ensuring harmony between procedure and justice. Codification of judicial principles governing inherent powers, as suggested by jurists, could further aid uniform application and prevent misuse.

End Note

Books / Acts:

• C. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 and Chapter on Commercial Courts XXXX (8th ed. 2017) (1983).
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Act No. 5, Mar. 21, 1908, XXXX (India), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13813/1/the_code_of_civil_procedure,_1908.pdf

Cases:

• 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 84
• 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698
• AIR 2005 SC 3353

References:

1. Vineeta Jamwal v. Col (Retd.) Vijay Singh
2. In My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society vs B. Mahesh
3. Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India