INHERENT POWERS OF COURT

INTRODUCTION
The word 'inherent' means existing in something as a permanent, absolute,
inseparable, essential or characteristic attribute.
Inherent powers of courts are those powers which may be applied by the court to
perform full and complete justice between the parties before it.
It is the duty of the Courts to serve justice in every case, whether given in this code
or not, brings with it the important power to do justice in the absence of a definite or
separate provision.
This power is said to be the inherent power that is maintained by the court, though
not conferred. Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the inherent
powers of the court.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 TO 153B OF CPC

The law relating to inherent powers of Court is given under Section 148 to Section
153A of the CPC, which deals with the exercise of powers in different situations.
Following are the provisions of Inherent powers of Courts:
✓ Section 148 and Section 149 deals with grant or enlargement of time;
✓ Section 150 deals with the transfer of business;

✓ Section 151 protects the inherent powers of the courts; and

Section 152, 153 and Section 153A deals with amendments in judgments, decrees
or orders or in separate proceedings.
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
Section 148 of the CPC asserts that where any term is fixed or awarded by the Court
for the performing any act provided by CPC. It is the discretionary power of the
Court that Court may enlarge such period from time to time, even though the term
originally fixed or awarded may have departed.
In simple words, when a term is fixed by provision for the committing any act, the
Court has the power to extend such period up to 30 days. This power is exercisable
in the deficiency of any specific provision to the contrary which reduces or rejects
or withholds the period. The power is limited to the extension of the time fixed by it
and is discretionary.
PAYMENT OF COURT FEES
According to Section 149 of CPC. "Where the entire or a portion of any fee
commanded for any certificate by the law for the time being in force relating to court-
fees has not been met, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, permits 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 regard of which such fee
is payable, shall have the same force and result as if such fee had been paid in the
initial situation."
It permits the court to allow a party to make up for the lack of court fees due on a
complaint or notice of appeal etc., even after the expiry of the limitation period for
filing of the lawsuit or appeal, etc. Payment of the expected court fee is compulsory
for any document imputable with court-fee to be presented in the court. If the
necessary court fee is paid within the time set by the court, it cannot be negotiated
as time-barred. Such payment made within the time fixed by the court
retrospectively validates a faulty document. The power of the court is discretionary
and must be exercised only in the importance of justice.
SECTION 151 OF CPC
■ Section 151 deals with "Saving of inherent powers of Court." This Section states
that 'Nothing in CPC shall be considered to restrict or otherwise affect the inherent
power of the Court to make such orders as may be important for the ends of justice
or to limit abuse of the method of the Court.' It is not obligatory for the court to wait
for the law made by parliament or order from the higher judiciary. Court has
discretionary or inherent power to make such order which is not given in terms of
laws for the security of justice or to check misuse of the method of the Court.
The section does not provide for anything new and merely furnishes the legislative
recognition of age- old and well-established principle that every court has inherent
power to act ex debito justitiae to do that real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.'
It lengthens the hands of the court to pass any order to do justice when there is no
other remedy open to the aggrieved party. In 1868, Peacock CJ observed, "Since
the laws are general rules, they cannot regulate for all time to come so as to make
express provisions against all the cases that may possibly happen... It is the duty of
the judges to apply the laws, not only to what appears to be regulated by their express
dispositions but to all the cases to which a just application of them may be made,
and which appear to be comprehended either within the express sense of the law, or
within the consequences that may be gathered from it. This power is to be exercised
in very exceptional circumstances' and it is not to be capriciously or arbitrarily
exercised. The power cannot be exercised in disregard of the established principles
and norms of law. The court should not exercise the inherent power unless it is
satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice. Though the power is very wide
and residuary in nature and not controlled by any other provision of the Code, it is
not to be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent, or comes in conflict, with any of
the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by other provisions of
the Code'; if there are express provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic,
that gives rise to a necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in respect
of the said topic otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said provisions.
Every court, whether a civil court or a criminal court, can exercise such power even
if such power has not been expressly conferred by law. It is now a settled principle
of law that even in the absence of any express provision in the law, a court cannot
be considered as powerless to do justice or to undo a wrong. The Appellate
Division, in the case reported in 34 DLR (AD) 208, reproduced the following
observations of the Privy Council made in the case of Jai Berham Vs. Kadernath:
"It is inherent in the general jurisdiction of the court to act rightly and fairly
according to the circumstances towards all the parties involved".
In the case of Momin Miah and others reported in 12 MLR 289, the following
observations were made: "Court possesses a discretion to undo injustice caused to
men, public and citizens of state and Court must exercise that discretion." Para 49.
A party may file an application under section 151 of the Code praying for giving
him a relief by invoking the inherent power of the court.
While considering such a prayer, the court is to consider whether the other party
would be affected by the order. So, before passing an order. the other party should
be heard. Vide 10 BLT (AD) 100. See also 21 BLD 453
But when it comes to the notice of the court about its own mistakes, the court can
correct the mistake suo moto without waiting for any application from any party to
the suit. It is the duty of the court itself to correct its mistake and in the exercise of
such power, limitation cannot be a bar. Vide- 53 DLR 217, 21 BLD 227, 453, 2 BLC
(AD) 121, 43 DLR (AD) 58, 10 BLD 267, 22 BLD 120.

The general principle is that when a party has any scope of seeking relief under a
specific provision of law and when such relief can be given under that provision, the
court cannot give relief to the party by invoking its inherent power. Vide 29 DLR
(SC) 185, 16 BLD (AD) 50, 209, 20 BLD 14,276, 1 BLC (AD) 43, 4 MLR 128, 2
MLR 377, 8 BLC 320.

The plaintiff filed an application for issuing temporary injunction restraining the
defendant from dispossessing him from the suit land. On the date fixed for hearing
of the matter none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and as such the prayer for
temporary injunction was rejected. After few days, the plaintiff filed an application
under section 151 for vacating the earlier order and for hearing of the injunction
matter. In this application, the plaintiff claimed that due to illness he could not
appear on the date of hearing of the injunction matter. The court rejected the
application and then the plaintiff filed a revision. The High Court Division upheld
the order of the lower court taking the view that an appeal lies against the rejection
of an application for temporary injunction. Ref: 8 BLT 163.
After a preliminary decree in a partition suit, an advocate commissioner was
appointed to effect partition. The commissioner submitted his report and when no
party filed any objection against that report, the decree was made final.
Thereafter, an execution case was filed for getting possession in accordance with the
allotments made by the advocate commissioner. At that stage, one of the
defendants filed an application under section 151 for cancellation of the
commissioner's report and also for setting aside the final decree on the ground that
the sahams were not allotted by the commissioner according to the preliminary
decree. The court allowed the application and set aside the final decree. The matter
was ultimately taken to the Appellate Division. It was held by that Division that
as there was a provision for filing appeal against a final decree, the lower court
committed a mistake in granting relief under section 151 of the Code. Ref: 16 BLD
(AD) 50= 1 BLC (AD) 43.

In a suit, defendant took several adjournments and then the suit was fixed for
peremptory hearing on 4.7.99. On that date, the defendant did not appear and the
suit was decreed exparte. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under section
151 for setting aside the exparte decree stating that he could not appear on the date
of hearing because the clerk of his advocate wrongly noted the date. The lower
court rejected the prayer on the ground that the defendant had an alternative
remedy. This matter was taken to the Appellate Division which upheld the decision
of the lower court. Ref: 60 DLR (AD) 38.

However, there may be instances where, in spite of specific provision of getting

relief, relief may be given in exercise of the inherent power of the court to
prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure justice. Vide 51 DLR (AD)
54, 55 DLR 542, See also 8 BLT (AD) 179, 20 BLD (AD) 78 = 53 DLR (AD) 12,
24 BLD (AD) 223, 24 BCR (AD) 108, 44 DLR (AD) 242, 18 DLR 709, 8 BLC 379.
A suit for specific performance of contract was withdrawn on the basis of a
compromise between the parties. The condition was that the defendant would
withdraw a criminal case (a compoundable case) which he filed against the plaintiff
and the plaintiff would withdraw the suit against the defendant. After several days
of the withdrawal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under section 151 for
vacating the order of withdrawal stating that on a false representation of the
defendant that he would withdraw the criminal case, he earlier withdrew the suit but
actually the defendant did not withdraw the criminal case. It is also stated that he
was duped with making the prayer for withdrawal of the suit as a result of fraud.
The defendant opposed the prayer on two grounds: (i) that the court became functus
officio after passing the order of withdrawal and (ii) that the question of fraud being
a question of fact could be decided only on the basis of evidence which was not
possible under section 151.

The Court allowed the prayer and a revision was filed in which the High Court
Division held that "the trial court did not lose its jurisdiction to review its own order
and that it had jurisdiction to look into the allegations of the plaintiff." When the
defendant filed a leave petition, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Division
observing that "an order under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure when
passed in the discretion of the court is not derogatory to the ends of justice, should
not be interfered with." Ref: 8 BLT (AD) 179.
The scope of exercising of Section 151 of CPC can be represented by some cases as
follows:
■ The court may recheck its orders and resolve errors:
■ Issuance of provisional sanctions when the case is not included by order 39 or to
place alongside an 'ex parte' order:
■ Illegal orders or orders passed without jurisdiction can be set- aside:
■ Subsequent events in the case can be taken into consideration by the court;
■ Power of Court to continue trial 'in camera' or prevent disclosure of its
proceedings;
■ The court can erase remarks made against a Judge; and
■The court can improve the suit and re-hear on merit or re-examine its order.

ENDS OF JUSTICE
"DEBENDRANATH V. SATYA BALA DASS"
In this case the meaning of "ends of justice" was explained. It was held that "ends of
justice" are solemn words, also these words are not merely a polite expression as per
juristic methodology. These words also indicate that Justice is the pursuit and end of
all law. However, this expression is not vague and indeterminate notion of justice
according to laws of the land and statutes.
The Court is allowed to exercise these inherent powers in cases like-to recheck its
own order and correct its error, to pass injunction in case not included by Order 39,
and an ex parte order against the party, etc.

ক. ন্যায় বিচারেে স্বারথ ে অন্তবন্বিত

ে ক্ষমতাে প্ররয়াগ: দেওয়ানী ক়ার্বিবিতে
য
আে়ালেতক সহজ়াে ক্ষমে়া দেওয়ার প্র়াথবমক উতেশ্য হতল়া নয়ায বিচ়ার বনশ্চিে
করতে প্রতয়াজনীয আতেশ্ প্রে়ান কর়া। নয়ায বিচ়াতরর স্ব়াতথ য আে়ালে বনম্নবলবিে
দক্ষতে অন্তবনবহে
য ক্ষমে়া প্রতয়াগ করতে প়াতর: র্থ়া

১. আরেশ এিং বিক্রি িাবতল এিং ভুল সংরশাধন্ কো :

দেওয়ানী ক়ার্বিবির
য ১৫২ ি়ার়ায আে়ালেতক ে়ার র়ায, বিক্রী ি়া আতেতশ্র করবিক
ি়া গ়াবিবেক ভুল সংতশ়্ািতনর এিবেয়ার বেতযতে। েতি এই ১৫১ ি়ার়ার বিি়ান ে়াড়াও
আে়ালে ে়ার অন্তবনবহেয ক্ষমে়া প্রতয়াগ কতর বনতজর আতেশ্ ি়াবেল করতে প়াতর
এিং ভুল সংতশ়্ািন করতে প়াতর। ঘটন়ার ভুল ি়ারি়ািশ্ে প্রেত্ত দক়ান আতেশ্ ি়াবেল
কর়ার ি়া আে়ালেতক ভুলভ়াতি পবরচ়াবলে কতর ি়া প্রে়ারি়ার আশ্রয বনতয প্র়াপ্ত
আতেশ্ ি়াবেল কর়ার সহজ়াে ক্ষমে়া দেওয়ানী আে়ালতের আতে

২. অস্থায়়ী বন্রেধাজ্ঞা জাে়ী:

দর্ সকল দক্ষতে ৩৯ নং আতেশ্ অনুর়্াযী অস্থ়াযী বনতেি়াজ্ঞ়া মঞ্জুর কর়া র়্ায ন়া,
দসই সকল দক্ষতে আে়ালে নয়ায বিচ়াতরর স্ব়াতথ য প্রতয়াজন মতন করতল সহজ়াে
ক্ষমে়া প্রতয়াগ কতর অস্থ়াযী বনতেি়াজ্ঞ়া মঞ্জুর করতে প়াতর।
৩. মমাকদ্দমা পুন্:বিচারে (Remand) মেেত পাঠারন্া:

দেওয়ানী ক়ার্বিবির
য ৪১ নং আতেতশ্র ২৩ ি়া ২৫ বিবির অিীন দর্ সকল দক্ষতে দক়ান
দম়াকেম়া পুন:বিচ়াতর দেরে দেওয়া র়্ায ন়া দসই সকল দক্ষতে আে়ালে ে়ার
সহজ়াে ক্ষমে়া প্রতয়াগ কতর দম়াকেম়া দেরে প়াঠ়াতে প়াতর। উপর্ুক্ত দক্ষতে
আপীল আে়ালে ে়ার অন্তবনবহে য ক্ষমে়া প্রতয়াগ কতর আরশ্চজ সংতশ়্ািন এিং দক়াটয
বে পবরতশ়্াি কর়ার জনয দম়াকেম়া দেরে প়াঠ়াতে প়াতর।
৫. মমাকদ্দমা একত্র়ীকেণ:

দম়াকেম়ার ক়ার্ি়ার়ার
য িহুত্ব এড়াতন়ার জনয আে়ালে েুইটট দম়াকেম়া ি়া আপীল
একতে শুন়ানী করতে আতেশ্ বেতে প়াতর। নয়ায বিচ়াতরর স্ব়াতথ য একই পক্ষদ্বতযর
মতিয েুইটট দম়াকেম়া একতে শুন়ানীর (Analogous hearing ) জনয আতেশ্ বেতে
প়াতর। একতে বিচ়াতরর জনয দম়াকেম়ার পক্ষদ্বয এিং বিচ়ার্ বিেয
য একই হতে হতি
৬. বিি়ী িা আরেশ কার্কে ে কো স্থবগত কেরত পারে:
আে়ালে ে়ার সহজ়াে ক্ষমে়া প্রতয়াগ কতর সীবমে পবরসতর দক়ান বিক্রী ি়া আতেশ্
ক়ার্কর
য কর়া স্থবগে করতে প়াতর। বকন্তু আপীল চল়াক়ালীন সমতয আে়ালতের এই
ক্ষমে়া প্রতয়াগ কর়ার দক়ান এিবেয়ার দনই ।

৭. প্রতযপণে (Restitution) বিেরয় আরেশ

প্রেযপি দেওয়ার
য এিবেয়ার দর্ শুিুম়াে দেওয়ানী ক়ার্বিবির
য ১৪৪ ি়ার়ার অিীন আতে
ে়া নয। দর্ সকল দক্ষতে ১৪৪ ি়ার়া প্রতর়্াজয হয ন়া, দসই সকল দক্ষতে আে়ালে ে়ার
অন্তবনবহে
য ক্ষমে়া প্রতয়াগ কতর প্রেযপিয বিেতয আতেশ্ বেতে প়াতর।

ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT

Section 151 of the CPC provides for the exercise of inherent powers to check the
infringement of the process of the court. Abuse of the powers of the court which
happens in unfairness to party needs to get relief on the ground that the act of a court
shall not prejudice anyone. When a party practices fraud on the court or on a party
to a proceeding, the remedies have to be provided on the basis of inherent power.
The word 'abuse' is said to occur when a Court uses a method in doing something
that it is never expected to do is the perpetrator of the said abuse and there is a failure
of justice. The injustice so done to the party must be given relief on the basis of the
doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no
one). A party to a case will become the perpetrator of the abuse in cases when the
said party does acts like obtaining benefits by functioning fraud on the Court or a
party to the proceedings, prompting the multiplicity of proceedings, etc.
AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS, DECREES, ORDERS, AND OTHER
RECORDS

■ Section 152 of CPC deals with the "Amendment of judgements, decrees, and
order." According to Section 152 of CPC, Court has the power to change (either by
own actions or on the application of any of the parties) written or arithmetical
mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or faults arising from an unexpected lapse
or imperfection.
Section 153 deals with the "General authority to amend." This Section empowers the
court to amend any fault and error in any proceedings in suits and all required
improvements shall be made for the purpose of arranging raised issues or depending
on such proceeding.
Section 152 and 153 of the CPC makes it clear that the court may set correct any
blunders in their experiences at any time.
■ Power to amend decree or order where an appeal is summarily dismissed and place
of the trial to be deemed to be open Court are defined under Section 153A and 153B
of CPC,1908.
LIMITATION
The exercise of inherent powers carries with it certain barriers such as:
■ They can be applied only in the deficiency of particular provisions in the Code;

■ They cannot be applied in dispute with what has been expressly given in the code;
■They can be applied in rare or exceptional cases;
■ While operating the powers, the court has to follow the method shown by the
legislature;
■ Courts can neither exercise jurisdiction nor entrust in them by law:
■To abide by the principle of Res Judicata i.c., not to open the issues which have
already been decided finally;
■To pick a mediator to make an award afresh;
■Substantive rights of the parties shall not be taken away;
■To limit a party from taking proceedings in a court of law; and
■To set apart an order which was valid at the moment of its issuance.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF INHERENT POWERS OF COURTS

A summary of Section 148 to Section 153B is that the powers of the court are quite
deep and extensive for the scope of:
✓ Reducing litigation;
✓ Evade multiplicity of proceedings; and

✓To supply full and complete justice between the parties.