Jump to content

Inherent Power of Civil Court

From The Justice Definitions Project

The term “inherent” refers to something that is naturally part of or inseparable from something else, an essential, intrinsic quality or power attached as a right or privilege. In the legal context, inherent powers are those inalienable powers of a court that exist to ensure fairness and proper conduct in judicial proceedings, particularly where the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 offers no specific guidance. These powers are meant to secure full and complete justice between parties but must always be exercised within the boundaries of the law and not in contradiction to any existing legal provision.

Official Definition of Inherent Powers of Civil Court

Inherent Powers of Civil Court as Defined in Legislation

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908

The provisions of the Code are not comprehensive, simply because the legislature cannot anticipate all possible circumstances that may arise in future litigation. Inherent powers come to the rescue in such unforeseen situations. They can be exercised ex debito justitiae (as a matter of justice) when no specific provisions exist in the Code[1]. However, these powers must be used with due care and not arbitrarily.

Section 151 of the CPC deals with the saving of the inherent powers of the court. It states that nothing in the 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.

A civil court may invoke its inherent powers to serve the ends of justice in various situations, such as reviewing its own orders to correct errors or issuing injunctions not explicitly covered under Order 39, including ex parte orders and more[2]

The term 'prevent abuse’ refers to situations where the court's authority is misused, resulting in injustice. In such cases, the court should correct the harm caused, following the principle that “an act of the court shall prejudice no one” (actus curiae neminem gravabit). A party may be considered guilty of abuse when it engages in acts such as fraudulently obtaining benefits from the court or another party, or initiating unnecessary and repetitive legal proceedings

Limitations of S 151 of CPC

The inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are not absolute and are subject to several limitations. These powers can only be exercised when no specific provision in the CPC exists to address a particular situation. If the Code expressly or impliedly provides a remedy, the court must follow it and cannot invoke inherent powers as a substitute. Courts are barred from exercising these powers in a manner that conflicts with any provision of the CPC or to override substantive or statutory rights[3].

Inherent powers must be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the court process. These powers cannot confer jurisdiction that the court does not possess by law, nor can they be used to review, nullify, or amend orders where specific remedies already exist in the CPC. Additionally, they cannot be invoked to direct an arbitrator to remake an award, to restrain a party from initiating legal proceedings in another competent court, or to override the principle of res judicata which bars reopening issues that have been finally decided[4].

Courts must also adhere strictly to the procedure established by law when exercising such powers. Importantly, Section 151 cannot be invoked where alternative remedies are available under the Code  or to interfere with statutory procedures[5].

Legal Provisions Relating to Inherent Power of Civil Court

As per Section 148 of CPC  the courts have discretionary power to enlarge the period of time. It states that where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such a period, not exceeding thirty days in total, even if the period originally fixed or granted has expired. This power of the court is discretionary in nature and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Section 149 of CPC  deals with the power of the court to make up for the deficiency of court fees.  It states that where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law relating to court fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person liable to pay the fee to make the payment. Upon such payment, the document shall have the same force and effect as if the fee had been paid initially. This power is discretionary and should be exercised in the interest of justice.

Section 150 of the CPC deals with the transfer of business. It states that unless otherwise provided, when the business of a Court is transferred to another Court, the transferee Court shall have the same powers and perform the same duties as those conferred or imposed on the original Court under the Code.

This section 152 of CPC relates to the amendment of judgments, decrees, or orders.It states that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders, or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, may be corrected by the Court at any time, either on its own motion or upon application by any party. This section is based on two key principles:

  • An act of the court should not prejudice any party.
  • It is the duty of the courts to ensure their records are accurate and reflect the correct state of affairs.

Section 153 of CPC deals with the general power to amend. It states that the Court may, at any time and on such terms regarding costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit. All necessary amendments shall be made to determine the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.

Section 153A of CPC deals with the power to amend a decree or order when an appeal is summarily dismissed. It states that where an Appellate Court dismisses an appeal under Rule 11 of Order XLI, the power to amend the decree or order under Section 152 may still be exercised by the Court that passed the original decree or order. This applies even if the dismissal of the appeal effectively confirms the original decision.

Inherent Powers of Civil Court as defined in Case Laws

Various judicial pronouncements have outlined the circumstances in which the inherent powers of a civil court may be invoked, as well as those in which their exercise is not permissible.

Situations Where Inherent Powers Can Be Invoked  

The court may consolidate multiple suits and appeals, even without the parties' consent, and can order joint trials[6] when doing so promotes justice. It may also transpose parties[7] or verify whether the correct parties are involved in a case. In appropriate instances, the court may allow a third party to be added or permit a defendant to defend as an indigent person without court fees.

Courts have the power to stay proceedings in anticipation of an appeal or even stay a suit that doesn’t fall under Section 10 of the CPC (Res sub judice)[8]. They may also restore suits dismissed for default in situations not covered by Order 9 Rule 9. Additionally, courts may determine issues of jurisdiction or decide that they lack jurisdiction entirely.

In the interest of justice, courts may amend a suit and rehear it or revise previous orders. They can delay or modify the execution of their own orders and also nullify orders passed unlawfully or without jurisdiction. The inherent powers include correcting clerical or accidental errors[9], considering events that occurred after the case was initiated, and even removing adverse remarks made against a judge.

Courts may allow temporary injunctions in cases not strictly covered by Order 39[10] or set aside ex parte orders. They also hold the power to take proceedings in-camera to maintain confidentiality or protect privacy[11]. Refunds of inadvertently paid court fees may be granted, and courts can order the reconstruction of lost records caused by accidents or other unforeseen circumstances[12].

A co-plaintiff’s request to withdraw from a suit can be rejected, especially when there’s no intention to file a fresh suit on the same cause. Courts may apply the doctrine of res judicata even in cases not expressly covered by Section 11 of CPC. They may also summarily punish acts of contempt to preserve the dignity and authority of the court.

Situations Where Inherent Powers Cannot Be Invoked

While invoking the inherent powers of the court, it is essential that the court ensures these powers do not undermine the primary objective of justice. Inherent powers serve as a supplement, not a substitute, to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Therefore, these powers must not be exercised when there is a specific provision in the Code addressing the matter in question. In such cases, the statutory provision takes precedence.

There are several situations where the use of inherent powers is impermissible. For instance, interim relief, usually granted only through a final decree, should not be awarded through inherent powers[13]. Similarly, compelling parties to undergo medical examinations or blood tests cannot be done through inherent powers[14], as such actions are regulated by specific provisions within the CPC or other applicable laws.

Courts also should not invoke inherent powers to appoint a commissioner for seizing account books in the possession of the plaintiff, as procedural rules already cover such measures[15]. Likewise, Section 151 CPC should not be used as a means to review or reconsider an order, since the Code contains well-defined procedures for review under Section 114 and Order 47.

Inherent powers must not be invoked to set aside an ex parte decree, as such relief is already governed by Order 9 Rule 13. They also cannot be used to strike out a defense when other express provisions, such as those under Order 11 or Order 8, dictate the process. If a suit is dismissed for non-payment of court fees under Order 7 Rule 11(d), it cannot be restored solely through inherent powers unless the conditions laid down in the Code are strictly met.

Additionally, courts cannot use inherent powers to refund court fees on a review application if the application is based on errors of law or fact. Such powers should only be used in the absence of any express provision and must be exercised with restraint and caution. This limitation is not only textual but also implied, as reinforced by judicial precedent[16].  

Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila

The Supreme Court clarified that the Code of Civil Procedure is a detailed framework designed specifically for managing civil proceedings. However, recognizing that not all procedural scenarios can be anticipated by legislation, the Court acknowledged that inherent powers are embedded within the Code to address unforeseen situations during litigation. These powers enable the courts to act fairly and ensure justice when no specific procedural rule exists. Importantly, the Court emphasized that such inherent powers must not be exercised in areas where the CPC already provides clear and specific procedures[17].

Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal

The Court reiterated that the CPC is not exhaustive in scope because lawmakers cannot foresee every possible situation that might arise in civil litigation. Therefore, inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are not granted by the Code, but exist naturally within the court’s authority to prevent injustice and fill procedural gaps. These powers may be used by courts at any level, unlike Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is reserved for High Courts. While Section 482 gives criminal courts wide-ranging powers, including ensuring compliance with orders, the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are limited to ensuring justice only when no specific rule in the CPC applies[18].

K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy

In this case the scope of Section 151 was extended to the following[19]:

  • Section 151 is not a substantive provision but reflects the discretionary power of every court to render justice in accordance with law, to do what is right and undo what is wrong, by taking all necessary steps to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court's process.
  • Since the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, the court may use its inherent powers to deal with situations not covered by the Code, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, to achieve the ends of justice.
  • A court has no power to act in ways that are prohibited by law or the Code. Inherent powers cannot be used when a remedy or procedure is expressly provided in the Code.
  • The inherent powers of the court are complementary to the powers specifically conferred and must not conflict with any express provision of the Code.
  • The exercise of these powers depends on the court's discretion and wisdom, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case.
  • These powers must be used with care and only when absolutely necessary.

Inherent Power of Civil Court in International Law

Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, the doctrine of inherent powers is firmly embedded in both civil and criminal legal frameworks through statutory recognition and judicial interpretation. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, explicitly acknowledge the courts' authority to act beyond procedural constraints when necessary to serve justice or prevent misuse of the legal process.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides :-

“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.”

Over time, the Bangladeshi judiciary has developed a balanced and context-sensitive approach, using these inherent powers to navigate between the rigidity of legal procedures and the need for equitable outcomes[20].

Republic of the Sudan

The doctrine of inherent powers in Sudan’s Civil Procedure Code is designed to ensure that justice is served, particularly when there are gaps or limitations in existing statutory provisions. These powers allow the court to take necessary actions to prevent injustice or the abuse of legal processes. Fundamentally, they operate as a safeguard against procedural deficiencies, enabling the judiciary to intervene when formal rules prove inadequate. This concept, rooted in common law, was originally adopted from the Indian Code and carried forward into the Sudanese Civil Justice Ordinance. Despite Sudan’s shift from a common law to a civil law system, the same language and principles were retained in the 1983 Civil Procedure Code, reaffirming the enduring relevance of these powers.

Section 328 provides “Saving of the Inherent Power of the Court”[21]

The Court may, at any time correct any procedural error, take any measures or make any amendments as may be reasonable for the purpose of the determination of any question in controversy between the parties. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such order as may be necessary, for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

The Sudanese Constitution of 2019 provides the broader framework within which these powers function. Article 4 articulates the state’s commitment to justice, human rights, and legal equality, forming a constitutional mandate for purposive judicial interpretation. Article 6 underscores the supremacy of the rule of law and the judiciary’s responsibility to rectify legal wrongs, thereby justifying the invocation of inherent powers. Article 8 further supports this by calling for legal reform and the development of a justice system rooted in independence and rule of law. Thus, while inherited from a different legal tradition, the doctrine remains firmly embedded in Sudan’s current legal and constitutional structure[22].

Research that engages with the topic

Inherent Powers of Civil Courts vis-à-vis Provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure – North Eastern Judicial Officers’ Training Institute

This scholarly essay is authored by Sri S.M. Deka, Director of NEJOTI, examines the nuanced relationship between Section 151 (inherent powers of civil courts) and Order VII Rule 11 (rejection of plaint) of the CPC. The author emphasizes that Section 151 embodies legislative recognition of civil courts’ intrinsic powers to uphold justice and prevent abuse of judicial process. These powers are not derived from the statute but are inherent in all civil courts. However, the lack of defined guidelines within the provision has led to inconsistent judicial approaches and, at times, misuse. The article highlights how courts have interpreted the phrases “ends of justice” and “abuse of process” to define the limits and scope of inherent powers. Supreme Court judgments are referenced to illustrate the doctrinal boundaries and judicial discipline necessary to prevent overreach[23].

Inherent Powers of Courts Under Civil Procedure Code (International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics)

The research document Inherent Powers of Courts Under Civil Procedure Code by Sneha Priyadarshini and Mrs. V. Udayavani, published in 2018, explores the foundational necessity of inherent powers vested in civil courts under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The article emphasizes that these powers, though not expressly stated in the CPC, are essential tools that empower courts to act in the interest of justice, especially in the absence of specific provisions. Described as supplementary to express legal provisions, inherent powers are portrayed as arising from the court's obligation to "do the right and undo the wrong." The authors advocate for a liberal interpretation of Section 151, suggesting that inherent powers are co-extensive with necessity, enabling courts to prevent the abuse of legal process and to ensure substantial justice even in exceptional or unforeseen situations[24].

Inherent Powers of a Civil Court: A Study

The research document by Prof. (Dr.) Mukund Sarda (2016), Principal & Dean, Faculty of Law, New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune, delves into the scope, necessity, and limitations of inherent powers of civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

This paper systematically explores Section 151 of the CPC, which preserves the inherent powers of civil courts to act ex debito justitiae,  to do real and substantial justice in the absence of specific statutory provisions. It outlines related provisions from Sections 148 to 153A that address issues such as extension of time, rectification of clerical errors, and correction of judgments. Drawing on key Supreme Court decisions, the author explains that these powers are discretionary, not absolute, and can only be exercised when the Code is silent or where procedural abuse threatens justice. The work emphasizes that these powers must not override express provisions, affect substantive rights, or conflict with doctrines like res judicata. The study ultimately recommends codification of these inherent principles through Supreme Court-framed rules to ensure uniform application and prevent misuse[25].

  1. ↑ Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure 16th Edition at page 1425
  2. ↑ Debendranath v. Satya Bala Dass, AIR1950CAL217
  3. ↑ Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kanhayalal Bhargav, (A.I.R 1966 CC 1899 )
  4. ↑ Ch. Guru Sai Kumar, Inherent Powers of a Courts Under Code of Civil Procedure, 12 Int’l J. Current Sc. 874 (Dec. 2022), available at https://rjpn.org/ijcspub/papers/IJCSP22D1343.pdf
  5. ↑ Satya Prakash Tiwari v. Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Etawah.2006(1)AWC367
  6. ↑ M/S.Tvs Motor Company Limited vs M/S.Bajaj Auto Limited
  7. ↑ Vijay Shanker Rai And Others vs Sarvjeet Rai And Others
  8. ↑ Manav Pamnani, Revisiting Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code: Balancing Flexibility and Efficiency with Judicial Consistency, SCC Times (Jan. 8, 2025), available at https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/01/08/revisiting-section-10-of-the-civil-procedure-code-balancing-flexibility-and-efficiency-with-judicial-consistency/
  9. ↑ Keshardeo v. Radha Kissen, 1953 AIR 23
  10. ↑ Ramaswamy Raja And Anr. vs Ellappa Gounder,(1960)2MLJ555
  11. ↑ SCC Online Editorial Team, In Camera Proceedings Can Be Held Under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 If Warranted by the Facts and Circumstances of the Case: Delhi High Court, SCC Online Times (Feb. 14, 2023), available at https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/02/14/in-camera-proceedings-can-be-held-under-section-151-of-civil-procedure-code-1908-if-warranted-by-the-facts-and-circumstances-of-the-case-delhi-high-court/
  12. ↑ Jampala Malayadri Naidu vs Meruva Subrahmanyam
  13. ↑ Kalyan Singh vs State Of U.P.,AIR 1961 ALLAHABAD 619
  14. ↑ Krishnamurthi Aiyar vs Govindaswami Pillai And Anr, AIR 1966 MADRAS 443
  15. ↑ Ananda Rubi vs K. Kotti
  16. ↑ Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1965 SC 993)
  17. ↑ Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila,AIR 1965 SC 364
  18. ↑ Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, 1962 AIR 527
  19. ↑ K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy, 2011 AIR SCW 2296
  20. ↑ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/inherent-power-courts-bangladesh-scope-application-judicial-w3ixe/
  21. ↑ Code of Civil Procedure Act, 2007, Southern Sudan (2007), available at https://dr.211check.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Code-of-Civil-Procedure-Act-2007.pdf
  22. ↑ Hafiz Gaffar, The Doctrine of Inherent Powers under the Sudanese Civil Procedure Code: Its Origin, Nature and Scope, 69 J. Afr. L. 109 (Feb. 2025), available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-african-law/article/doctrine-of-inherent-powers-under-the-sudanese-civil-procedure-code-its-origin-nature-and-scope/B3BD96B8B846D30823A526977A5C98B6
  23. ↑ S.M. Deka, Inherent Powers of Civil Courts vis-à-vis Provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, N.E. Jud. Officers’ Training Inst., https://jaa.assam.gov.in/storage/article_pdf/si1623067502Article-29.pdf.
  24. ↑ Sneha Priyadarshini & V. Udayavani, Inherent Powers of Courts Under Civil Procedure Code, 120 Int’l J. Pure & Applied Math. 2495, 2495–2509 (2018), http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/3/211.pdf.
  25. ↑ Sarda, Mukund, Inherent Powers of a Civil Court: A Study (April 2, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2758064 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2758064
Contributors & review status
Curated / edited bynot yet recorded
Peer reviewpending
Project reviewpending
Expert reviewpending
Page created 2026-08-21  ·  Last updated 2026-08-28
Retrieved from "https://www.lawandjusticewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Inherent_Power_of_Civil_Court&oldid=16099"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.