The basic aim of this project is to look into the general principles relating to inherent powers vested in the

Civil Court, the limitations imposed on the exercise of these powers and the parameter of these powers.

Section 151 of the CPC provides for the saving of the inherent powers of the court in order to meet the ends of justice or to avoid the abuse of the process of the court. However, neither of these phrases has been defined in the CPC. Therefore, in order to find their meaning we need to look into various case laws available on the matter

MEANING OF INHERENT POWERS

TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE TO PREVENT THE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT

If we take dictionary meaning of the word inherent then it alludes its meaning as 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.

The meaning of the word power, the meaning drawn out in the case of Seth Lookasan Sethiya v. Ivan E John , is that power means authority, whether any discretion is left or not and whether any direction is imperative or directory relates to the manner and exercise of the power and not to the basic ingredient of the authority itself. Without authority, a valid act cannot be done irrespective of whether the act is discretionary on the part of the doer of the act, or he is bound to do it. In both situations, he must have authority.

In the case of Debendranath v. Satya Bala Dass, the phrase ends of justice was explained and it was held that ends of justice are solemn words and not mere polite expression in juristic methodology and justice is the pursuit and end of all law. But these words do not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice according to statutes and laws of the land. Thus it can be said that one of the reasons for invoking inherent powers by the court is to do justice when injustice is highly manifest.

ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT BY THE COURT ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT BY THE PARTIES

An abuse of the process of the court may be committed by the court. In the landmark Privy Council judgment, Debi Baksh v. Habib Shah, the court of the Deputy Commissioner of Oudh had dismissed a suit for default of appearance of the plaintiff who was in fact dead at the time the order was made. On the first appeal, the Judicial Commissioner upheld the decision. When the case went to the Privy Council in appeal, Lord Shaw, after stating that the rules and orders applicable to defaulters cannot be applied to a dead man, observed that this was an abuse of the process of the court as stated in s. 151 by the office of the Judicial Commissioner.

A party litigating may also be guilty of the abuse of the process of the court in various cases, for e.g., gaining an unfair advantage by the rule of procedure, retention of a benefit wrongly gained, instituting vexatious, obstructive or dilatory actions, executing a decree manifestly at variance with its purpose and intent, institution of a puppet plaintiff.

WHEN THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION CAN BE INVOKED AND WHETHER IT CAN OVERRIDE THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CODE ?

In the case of Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Anr. Court held , Section 151 is not a provision of law conferring power to grant any kind of substantive relief rather it is a procedural provision saving the inherent power of the Court to make such Orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice . It cannot be used either to create or recognise rights, or to create liabilities and obligations. In this case, a suit or proceeding initiated in accordance with law, cannot be considered as an abuse of the process of Court, only on the ground that such suit or proceeding is likely to cause hardship or is likely to be rejected ultimately. As there are specific provisions in the Code, relating to costs, security for costs and damages, the Court cannot invoke Section 151 on the ground that the same is necessary for ends of justice. Thus, a Court trying a civil suit, cannot, in exercise of inherent power under Section 151.

In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal court held that inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 CPC, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive.

In the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara court held that inherent power under Section 151 cannot be exercised to nullify provisions of Code. Inherent power of the Court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151, C.P.C., but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. In the present case. Section 10, C.P.C. has no application and consequently, it was not open to the High Court to bye-pass Section 10, C.P.C. by invoking Section 151, C.P.C.

In the case of BUDHIA SWAIN v. GOPINATH DEB Justice R.C Lahoti, opined that a court has a power to recall its own order under its inherent powers. The apex court held that the court has inherent power to recall and set aside an order: Obtained by fraud practiced upon the court, When the court is misled by the parties, or When the court itself commits a mistake, which prejudices a party

That the inherent powers in not absolute is clearly evident. Though it is discretionary in nature the discretion is not to be exercised in an arbitrary manner. Courts cannot override express provisions of law and general principles of law.