Saving of inherent powers of Court
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with saving of inherent powers of Court. 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
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.
Section 151, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Civil courts must impose realistic costs (CPC ss.35, 35A) and use inherent powers (s.151) to deter false and vexatious litigation; uncontested adjournments and token costs encourage abuse. Maria Margarida (same era) has only a 2010 ROP on its CNR and is not used. Use Judgment order-4.pdf (2011-07-04).
On this section: Inherent powers save the Court from being helpless against delay and abuse where ss.35/35A are under-used.
-
Ramji Gupta vs Gopi Krishan Agrawal (d)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
1. A Small Causes Court cannot adjudicate upon title to immovable property even incidentally; findings on title rendered by Small Causes Court cannot operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. 2. A Hindu female holding only life interest under will or gift cannot acquire absolute title to property under Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956; such life interest remains unaltered. 3. An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex parte decree can only be filed by original defendants or parties to suit, not by non-parties or strangers, regardless of their interest in the outcome. 4. Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised to override express statutory provisions or to grant remedies where other provisions exist in CPC; such powers can be used only to rectify fraud upon court, not fraud upon party. 5. A Land Acquisition Reference Court derives jurisdiction solely from order of reference and cannot entertain applications pro interesse suo or for impleadment from persons not originally made parties; such persons must approach Land Acquisition Officer under Sections 18 or 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
On this section: Section 151 provides inherent jurisdiction to courts to issue orders necessary to do justice; however, cannot be used to override express provisions or in cases where remedy exists elsewhere or where fraud has been upon a party
-
Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya vs Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased) through Lrs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a defendant dies prior to the filing of a suit, the legal representatives of such deceased defendant can be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC at any stage of the proceedings, even if an earlier application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was dismissed as not maintainable, provided the suit was instituted through a bona fide mistake and the presence of legal representatives is necessary for effective adjudication of the suit. The dismissal of the Order 22 Rule 4 application on grounds of non-maintainability does not operate as res judicata against a subsequent Order 1 Rule 10 application because the two provisions serve different purposes and the first application was not decided on merits. The impleadment shall be subject to the law of limitation as contemplated under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be decided during trial.
On this section: Provides inherent powers to the court to make orders necessary for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. Applied to support the court's authority to add necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10.
-
Sinnamani vs G. Vettivel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a statute (such as the Indian Trust Act) provides for filing a suit for certain purposes (e.g., Section 59 for beneficiary enforcement of trusts) and provides for filing original petitions for other purposes (e.g., Sections 72-73 for trustee management), the procedure prescribed by the statute must be strictly followed. An Original Petition filed in violation of this statutory procedure cannot be converted into a suit in the absence of an express enabling provision in the statute itself (such as exists in Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act but does not exist in the Trust Act). Courts cannot invoke general principles like the doctrine against hyper-technicalities or inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to circumvent the mandatory procedural distinctions established by the statute.
On this section: Inherent jurisdiction of court; discussed as not applicable to nullify prescribed procedures
-
Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to transfer a case, appeal or other proceeding pending in a Court subordinate to it to any Court subordinate to another High Court. Only the Supreme Court of India, in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can effect such transfer. Section 23(3) of the CPC is merely a procedural provision specifying the forum for making an application and does not confer substantive power of transfer. Where courts are subordinate to different High Courts, application for transfer must be made to the Supreme Court under Section 25. The provisions of Sections 22 to 25 of the CPC relating to transfer are exhaustive in nature, and no other provision or inherent power can be invoked to effect inter-High Court transfers.
On this section: Provides inherent powers to courts. Court held that these inherent powers cannot be exercised in contravention of express and specific statutory provisions. Since Sections 22 to 25 are exhaustive on the subject of transfer, Section 151 has no application in cases of inter-High Court transfers.
-
Chloro Controls(i) P. LTD vs Severn Trent Water Purification INC
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In multi-party and composite commercial transactions involving multiple interconnected agreements (principal/mother agreement and ancillary/subsidiary agreements), where the principal agreement contains a comprehensive arbitration clause covering disputes 'under or in connection with' such agreement, and the ancillary agreements are integral to performing the objectives of the principal agreement and are referred to therein, the Court shall refer all disputes arising from such composite transaction to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This referral can include disputes of non-signatory parties who are claiming through or under the signatory parties to the principal agreement, provided: (1) there is a defined legal relationship between such parties arising from the composite transaction; (2) the parties' manifest intention demonstrates unified dispute resolution through arbitration; (3) the disputes are intrinsically interlinked and capable of composite resolution without risk of conflicting awards on overlapping issues; and (4) no serious challenge is made to the validity, operability or enforceability of the arbitration agreement at the threshold. The expression 'any person claiming through or under' in Section 45 is to be liberally construed to achieve the legislative intent of according primacy to arbitration in international commercial disputes, subject to the exceptions of agreements being null and void, inoperative or incapable of performance. Bifurcation of parties or causes of action is generally not permissible under the 1996 Act, but this does not prevent composite reference of all disputes arising from interlinked agreements forming a unified commercial transaction.
On this section: Court can exercise to pass appropriate orders in furtherance of arbitration reference, including staying suit proceedings
-
Sarup Singh vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The primary ratio decidendi is that the transitional provision Section 30(2) of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 applies only to awards made by Collector or Reference Court during the period 30 April 1982 to 24 September 1984, and High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain applications under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to amend final decrees by granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest to cases where awards were finalized prior to 30 April 1982. Consequently, executing court can and must refuse to execute such void orders at the execution stage. A decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity (non est) and void ab initio, and such defect can be challenged at any stage including execution proceedings. The Court further held that the doctrine of equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegal or wrongful benefits extended to some persons, and the maxim 'two wrongs do not make a right' applies to prevent such claims.
On this section: Inherent jurisdiction of court; Court held High Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to reopen final decree by amending solatium and interest rates
-
Rajesh Burmann vs Mitul Chatterjee (barman)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The terms 'maintenance' and 'support' under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 are comprehensive and of wide amplitude and include medical expenses incurred by the wife for her health and treatment. A wife is entitled to claim medical reimbursement from her husband as part of her maintenance and support obligation, and courts have jurisdiction to entertain such claims in matrimonial suits under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The amount already received from insurance should be deducted from the total medical expenses claimed.
On this section: Wife filed application under this section to claim medical reimbursement in pending matrimonial suit; Court held that provisions of CPC apply to courts exercising power under Special Marriage Act, 1954
-
Arti Dixit vs Sushil Kumar Mishra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an applicant seeks to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in a Small Causes Court, the mandatory requirement of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 requires that the applicant must either deposit the decretal amount or furnish valid security that is enforceable under Section 145 CPC. Security consisting of property belonging to a third party (such as a Municipal Corporation) which cannot be sold to enforce the surety does not satisfy the legal requirement of valid security. The failure of the Court to pass an order on an application under Section 17 does not excuse the applicant from furnishing legally valid and enforceable security within the prescribed period of 30 days. The security must be such that it can be enforced through sale of the property, and merely taking the surety on record without determining its sufficiency and enforceability does not constitute acceptance of valid security under the Act.
On this section: Inherent powers of Court to pass orders necessary for ends of justice
-
Saheb Khan vs Mohd. Yusufuddin
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For setting aside a court-ordered sale under Order XXI Rule 90(2) CPC, the applicant must establish both a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale AND substantial injury sustained by the applicant as a result of such irregularity or fraud. The presence of either element alone is insufficient. Allegations of fraud or irregularity must be made with specific particulars supported by material facts; bald allegations are impermissible. 'Wide publicity' directed by the court does not necessitate newspaper advertisement unless specifically ordered. Compliance with Order XXI Rules 54(2) and 67(1) through local notices, pamphlet distribution, and affixation on property constitutes adequate publicity. An alleged prospective purchaser's unperformed offer, without actual deposit or appearance despite multiple opportunities, cannot justify setting aside a duly executed auction sale where the actual purchaser has fully complied with payment obligations.
On this section: General power to set aside a sale; invoked alongside Order XXI Rule 90 by the respondent in the application
-
Srei International Fin. Ltd. vs Ashok Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A corporate litigant engaged in civil proceedings has a duty to monitor the status of the litigation and maintain communication with its counsel. When a litigant remains dormant about suit proceedings for an inordinate period (such as three years) without taking any steps to ascertain the status of the case, and subsequently seeks to set aside an ex-parte decree by attributing negligence to its counsel, the court will not condone such delay unless the litigant demonstrates bonafide conduct and due diligence. The excuse that counsel assured information would be furnished as needed is insufficient to excuse a three-year delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. Furthermore, testimony by counsel regarding factual matters within his knowledge (such as communications sent to the client) does not constitute privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act and is admissible in evidence to rebut allegations of professional negligence.
On this section: Grants inherent powers to courts to make orders necessary for the ends of justice
-
Gopalkrishna S Bakale vs Sri Ganapathi C Bakale
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mere filing of an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC does not ipso facto mandate a detailed trial; the Executing Court is justified in summary rejection if the claim is legally untenable or lacks prima facie documentary support of independent title.
On this section: Inherent powers of the court cited in the original application.
-
Sanjay Kumar Sahoo vs Gita Mohapatra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A litigant cannot be allowed to abuse the process of court by giving a dispute of essentially civil nature the cloak of a criminal offence.
On this section: Inherent powers cannot override specific statutory bars.
-
Niharika Konidela vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a challenge is raised regarding the competency of a jurisdictional officer versus a faceless officer in tax assessments, the court may grant interim protection until the statutory compliance is verified.
On this section: Inherent powers for granting interim stay.
-
Discovery Drilling Pte Limited vs Parmod Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A foreign judgment passed by a court lacking competent jurisdiction over the defendant cannot be enforced in India under Section 44A CPC, even if the foreign court is a 'superior Court' of a 'reciprocating territory'. Specifically, where a defendant is added to proceedings in a foreign court without their written consent and the subject matter of the dispute does not fall within the specialized jurisdiction of that court, the foreign court lacks competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, and the resulting judgment falls within the exception specified in Section 13(a) CPC and is not enforceable in India.
On this section: General power of court to make orders necessary for ends of justice; cited as basis for filing execution petition
-
SAPNA AGRAWAL WO AMAR KUMAR vs VISHNU DNYANOBA JAWALKAR
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a breach of insurance policy terms is established due to an invalid driving license, the insurer may be directed to pay compensation to the third party and recover the amount from the insured owner via execution.
On this section: Inherent powers used to modify the award to ensure justice.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… I.A. No.16 of 2025 has also been filed on 17.04.2025 by the plaintiff under Chapter VI Rule 27(a) of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 read with Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, inter alia, seeking a direction for deferment of payment of court fees. 3. By order dated 30.04.2025 the following order was passed by this Bench : "The matter has been listed before this Bench being assignment of the roster 'Admiralty Suit.' The matter was heard listed yesterday. The …
Questions about Section 151
What have the courts held on Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (04 Jul 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Inherent powers save the Court from being helpless against delay and abuse where ss.35/35A are under-used. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 10 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 151, section 151 CPC, section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 151 order and cpc 151 application. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (04 Jul 2011).
When did Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 151, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.