Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

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