Inherent Power U/Sec 151 CPC Can Be Invoked Only When Alternate Remedies Do Not Exist: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked only in circumstances where alternate remedies do not exist.

"Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews", the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.

In this case, the plaintiff, who filed the suit in the year 1953, sought partition of properties of the Nawab known as 'Asman Jahi Paigah'. This suit was ultimately transferred to the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In 1959, the suit along with certain applications were disposed of by a preliminary­ cum ­final decree dated 06.04.1959 passed by the High Court. In this suit, a cooperative society (appellant) filed an application (for passing a final decree in their favour in respect of property) claiming that they acquired a property under an Assignment Deed  executed by the earlier predecessor ­in ­interest under the preliminary decree. Allowing the said application, the Single Judge passed a final decree. Later, a division Bench of the High Court of Telangana preferred by the respondents and granted them leave to file the application recalling the said final decree. The High Court, on merits, held that the appellant had obtained the final decree by suppressing certain information and thus recalled the decree by exercising its powers under Section 151 CPC.

Before the Apex Court, the appellant contended that the High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, when alternate remedies exist under the CPC. The issue considered was whether a third party to a final decree can be allowed to file such applications, by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the CPC.?

The bench, on the scope of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, observed:

"In exercising powers under Section 151 of the CPC, it cannot be said that the civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues. A Court having jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter has the power to decide and may come either to a right or a wrong conclusion. Even if a wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by the jurisdictional  court, the same is binding on the parties until it is set aside by an appellate court or through other remedies provided in law.

... Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law. Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews. A party cannot find solace in Section 151 to allege and rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuilt in the CPC'"

The court noted that the respondents, though they were not parties to the suit,  could have filed an appeal with the leave of the Court as an affected party. 

"Sections 96 to 100 of CPC deals with the procedure for filing appeals from original decrees. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the provisions are silent about the category of persons who can prefer an appeal. But it is well settled legal position that a person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned.. In the light of the above, it can be safely concluded any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court".

Allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

"We are of the opinion that the High Court should not have decided the recall application filed by the respondents, let alone pass such extensive orders which has the effect of unsettling proceedings and transactions which have a history of more than 60 years in a proceeding, basing on an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC."

Case details

My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society vs B. Mahesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698 | CA 5784 OF 2022 | 23 August 2022 | CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli

Counsel: Sr. Adv Dr. AM Singhvi, Sr. Adv Dushyant Dave, for appellants, Sr. Adv C. S. Sundaram, Sr. Adv V. Giri, Sr. Adv Yatin Oza for respondents

Headnotes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 151 -  Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law - It cannot be said that the civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues. A Court having jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter has the power to decide and may come either to a right or a wrong conclusion. Even if a wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by the jurisdictional court, the same is binding on the parties until it is set aside by an appellate court or through other remedies provided in law - Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews. A party cannot find solace in Section 151 to allege and rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuilt in the CPC. (Para 26-28)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Sections 96-100 - Any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court - A person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned. (Para 29-31)

Practice and Procedure - Judge who passed the impugned order had represented one of the opposite parties in certain collateral proceedings related to the subject property - Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done" - In the present circumstances, it may have been more apposite for the concerned Judge to have recused from this case - The appellant should have brought it to the notice of the learned senior Judge at the very first instance, and not at this belated stage. (Para 38-39)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment