Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

The inherent power U/S 151 of the CPC can only be used when other remedies are unavailable, according to the Supreme Court.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

Latest Legal News