Saving of inherent powers of Court
Full Text
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.
Plain English Summary
Section 151 declares and preserves the court's plenary inherent power to make any orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the judicial process, acting as an indispensable residual fountain of equity where procedural statutes are silent.
Key Legal Elements
- Declaratory Provision: Does not confer new powers, but formally recognizes and preserves the pre-existing, inherent authority intrinsic to every civil court.
- Twin Jurisdictional Pillars: Exercisable (1) for the 'ends of justice' or (2) 'to prevent abuse of the process of the Court'.
- Substantive Limitations: Cannot override, circumvent, or conflict with express provisions or statutory prohibitions in the Code.
- Residual Nature: Invocable only when no specific provision in the Code directly addresses or resolves the procedural contingency.
Practical Note
The Fountainhead of Civil Equity: Scope, Landmark Precedents & Boundaries of Section 151: 1. Inherent Nature (Not Created by Statute): In the landmark ruling Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (AIR 1962 SC 527), the Supreme Court established that inherent power is not conferred by the Code; it inheres in every court by virtue of its existence to do complete justice. Section 151 merely clarifies that the procedural provisions of the CPC do not exhaust or diminish this power. 2. Inherent Injunctions: As ruled in Manohar Lal Chopra, where Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 do not strictly apply, the court can issue temporary injunctions under Section 151 in extraordinary situations to prevent grave injustice. 3. Preventing Abuse of Process: Courts invoke Section 151 to: (i) recall orders obtained by fraud, suppression, or misrepresentation (A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., 2007); (ii) consolidate suits not falling strictly under Section 128; (iii) order DNA or scientific tests; (iv) restore dismissed miscellaneous proceedings not covered by Order IX; and (v) stay oppressive, duplicate, or vexatious proceedings. 4. Crucial Negative Boundaries: In Padam Sen v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC 218) and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275, the Supreme Court emphasized that inherent power: — Cannot be exercised against an express statutory prohibition; — Cannot create substantive rights; — Cannot bypass the law of limitation; — Cannot be invoked when an express, adequate remedy exists elsewhere in the CPC.
हिंदी पाठ
इस संहिता में की कोई बात ऐसे आदेश करने की न्यायालय की अंतर्निहित शक्ति (Inherent Power) को सीमित या अन्यथा प्रभावित करने वाली नहीं समझी जाएगी जो न्याय के उद्देश्यों के लिए (Ends of justice) अथवा न्यायालय की प्रक्रिया के दुरुपयोग के निवारण (To prevent abuse of the process of the Court) के लिए आवश्यक हों।