-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
Such inherent power cannot negate legal restrictions or enact remedies that are not provided for by the Code. The bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli stated that invoking Section 151 cannot be used as a substitute for bringing new lawsuits, appeals, revisions, or reviews.
In this case, the plaintiff, who brought the lawsuit in 1953, demanded the division of the 'Asman Jahi Paigah' Nawab's property. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh received this lawsuit in the end and added it to its caseload. A preliminary cum final ruling dated April 6, 1959, issued by the High Court resolved the lawsuit as well as certain related applications in 1959. An appeal was brought in this case by a cooperative society (appellant), who claimed they had acquired a property through an Assignment Deed signed by the earlier predecessor in interest under the preliminary decree. The Single Judge issued a final decree after granting the aforementioned application. Later, a division bench of the Telangana High Court accepted the respondents' appeal and gave them permission to submit a plea to recall the aforementioned final decree. On the merits, the High Court determined that the appellant had acquired the final decision by concealing some material. As a result, the High Court recalled the decree by using its authority under Section 151 CPC.
The appellant argued before the Apex Court that the High Court erred in asserting jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC when other CPC remedies are available. Whether a third party to a final decree could submit such applications by using the Court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC was the question under consideration.
The court emphasized that although the respondents were not parties to the lawsuit, they might have filed an appeal with the Court's permission as an affected party.