Site icon LegalOnus

Discretionary Powers of Courts under Section 151 CPC – Abuse or Necessity

ayush chandra
ChatGPT Image Jan 11, 2026, 08_49_05 PM
Spread the love

Tanu Sharma, Author

Tanu Sharma is currently in her third year of study for a BA LLB (Hons) at GGU, Central University of Chhattisgarh Read More

Introduction

Imagine this: A litigant, wronged by circumstances beyond control, stands in court. The black-and-white text of the law offers no clear remedy. The opposing counsel smugly points out that “no such provision exists” in the Code. But the judge, unmoved, flips past the rigid rules and invokes a power not codified in orders or sections — a power rooted in justice itself. That is Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — the silent guardian of fairness, the court’s last-resort tool when all else fails.

India’s legal framework, especially in civil matters, is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. It is a well-structured and detailed piece of legislation that governs the procedures to be followed during civil litigation — outlining everything from how a suit is filed, to how evidence is presented, to how judgments are enforced. It is designed to provide certainty, uniformity, and order. However, as with any rigid structure, there is always a risk that it might become too mechanical, too formalistic, and in some instances, unjustly indifferent to the facts of a peculiar case.

This is where Section 151 CPC steps in — a safety valve in an otherwise exhaustive procedural code. It reads-

“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.”

This provision, although not granting any specific relief or procedure, vests in the courts a wide discretionary power — a recognition that no law, however comprehensive, can anticipate every possible scenario. It ensures that the judiciary is not bound hand and foot when procedural gaps threaten the delivery of justice.

But herein lies the dilemma: How far should this discretion go? The same power that protects justice in exceptional cases can, if left unchecked, be manipulated or misused, either to delay proceedings, revisit settled issues, or bypass well-established norms. The debate around Section 151 CPC is, therefore, not just legal but philosophical — about whether justice lies in strict compliance with the rule, or in the spirit that breathes life into the rule.

Through this article, we explore how the courts have interpreted this unique provision, the tensions it creates between procedural order and equitable relief, and whether its invocation reflects judicial prudence or risks becoming a cloak for arbitrariness.

Legislative Intention and the Text of Section 151 CPC

In the intricate weave of legal procedures and codified rules, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stands as a gentle reminder that justice cannot always be measured in black-letter law. It is not a typical procedural rule or directive — instead, it serves as a declaration of judicial autonomy, grounded in fairness and equity. The text of the section is short, but its implications are vast:

“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.”

At its core, Section 151 is the legislature’s acknowledgment that the law, however carefully drafted, cannot predict every twist and turn a case may take. There will always be situations too rare, too complex, or too morally nuanced to be addressed by standard procedures. In such instances, the court must not become a silent observer, bound by formalistic limitations. It must instead rise to its role as the guardian of justice — and this provision empowers it to do just that.

The language of Section 151 is crafted with deliberate breadth. It makes no attempt to define or confine the types of orders that can be passed. It is open-ended because justice itself is not always definable. By using phrases like “necessary for the ends of justice” and “to prevent abuse of the process”, the provision leaves room for judicial discretion — but always with a strong ethical compass.

Importantly, the legislature did not intend to grant unchecked or unlimited powers to the courts. The idea was not to make judges omnipotent but to ensure that courts are not helpless in the face of injustice simply because no specific rule exists. Section 151, therefore, is both a shield and a sword: it shields litigants from unfair consequences caused by procedural lacunae, and equips the courts with the sword of discretion to act decisively when justice is at stake.

In effect, this provision gives meaning to the often-quoted maxim: “Where there is a right, there must be a remedy.” And when the remedy is nowhere in the Code, Section 151 quietly steps in.

Necessity-Judicial Recognition of Inherent Powers

In the practice of law, procedure is essential — it ensures order, consistency, and fairness in how justice is delivered. But what happens when strict adherence to procedure becomes the very reason justice is denied? That is where the necessity of Section 151 CPC comes into play.

The courts have time and again recognised that no codified system, however meticulously crafted, can cover every conceivable situation. The inherent power under Section 151 acts as a judicial lifejacket — allowing judges to float above procedural voids when fairness demands it.

This case is often cited as the cornerstone of judicial interpretation of Section 151 CPC. In this matter, the question before the Supreme Court was whether a civil court could grant a temporary injunction even if the case did not fall strictly within the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2.

The Court made it clear that when there is a clear risk of injustice, courts must not be powerless just because the Code does not specifically provide for a particular situation. The judgment held:

“The inherent powers are complementary to the powers conferred by the Code. They are not merely passive instruments but active tools for justice.”

This decision established that courts can issue orders to preserve justice, even if a procedural rule doesn’t expressly permit it — unless there is a clear prohibition in law.

In this case, the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that Section 151 is not a loophole, but a legitimate judicial recourse when circumstances demand it. A party had attempted to misuse procedural technicalities, and the court observed that sticking strictly to the rulebook would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court powerfully stated:

“Judicial procedure is a means to justice, not an end in itself.”

This case highlighted that procedure must serve justice, not obstruct it. Where the strict application of the law leads to absurdity or hardship, Section 151 becomes the moral compass guiding the court to fairness.

Abuse of Power- When Discretion Crosses the Line

While Section 151 CPC is essential for ensuring justice where the Code is silent, it walks a fine line. Discretion, though necessary, can easily turn into overreach if not exercised with caution. When courts stray from the guardrails set by specific procedural rules, even in the name of justice, it can distort the very fairness the law seeks to preserve.

This risk becomes especially real when Section 151 is used not as a safety valve, but as a shortcut — bypassing express provisions of the Code. That’s when courts must ask themselves: Are we using this power to do justice, or merely to bend procedure for convenience?

In this case, the Supreme Court firmly cautioned against the misuse of inherent powers. The issue was whether a party could reopen a hearing stage using Section 151, despite clear provisions in the Code regulating such situations.

The Court observed-

“Where specific provisions exist under the CPC, Section 151 cannot be used to nullify them.”

This meant that courts cannot override express rules just because they feel doing so might be ‘fair’ in a given case. Inherent powers should supplement, not supplant, procedural laws.

In this more recent decision, the Supreme Court addressed whether a party could recall a witness after the conclusion of their testimony using Section 151.

The Court emphasised-

“This inherent power is not an unregulated or unlimited one. It cannot override express provisions.”

The judgment was a stern reminder that Section 151 must not become a loophole to re-open or delay proceedings that are otherwise governed by explicit rules, such as Order 18 Rule 17.

Common Situations Where Section 151 is Invoked

Despite being brief and open-ended, Section 151 CPC is often the quiet hero in courtrooms, stepping in when procedural rules fall short. It’s not used in every case — nor should it be — but in certain exceptional situations, this provision becomes the court’s only lifeline to uphold justice.

Restoration of Cases Dismissed for Default

One of the most common and compassionate uses of Section 151 is to restore cases that were dismissed due to default, such as a party’s failure to appear in court. Sometimes the absence may be due to illness, accident, or a genuine error — things the law can’t always predict.

In Ram Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1982 P&H 252, the Punjab & Haryana High Court used Section 151 to restore a suit where the petitioner had missed the hearing for valid reasons. The court recognized that procedural lapses should not become a punishment when they result in genuine hardship.

Recall of Fraudulently Obtained Orders

Another vital use of Section 151 is in cases of fraud. Courts have the moral and legal duty to correct injustices, especially when orders have been obtained by deceit or misrepresentation.

In the landmark case Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550, the Supreme Court held that fraud vitiates every judicial act, and Section 151 empowers courts to recall such tainted orders — even in the absence of any specific procedural rule.

Preventing Multiplicity of Proceedings

To avoid wasteful and repetitive litigation, courts may invoke Section 151 to consolidate suits, grant stays, or pass other directions. This power ensures that the judicial process remains efficient and not bogged down by duplicative efforts.

Curbing Misuse of Interim Orders

Lastly, when parties misuse temporary injunctions — perhaps by hiding facts or manipulating the process — courts can rely on Section 151 to vacate or modify such orders. It acts as a shield against abuse and keeps the integrity of interim relief mechanisms intact.

Section 151 vs Express Provisions of CPC

While Section 151 CPC gives courts the flexibility to ensure justice, it is not a license to override the clear rules already laid down in the Code. The judiciary has drawn a clear line: inherent powers are to fill in the gaps — not to rewrite the law.

Courts have time and again clarified that Section 151 applies only when there is no specific provision in the Code that deals with a given situation. If the CPC already provides a remedy, one must follow it.

In Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee, AIR 1970 SC 997, the Supreme Court warned-

“Where there is an express provision, it is not open to the court to sidestep that by invoking Section 151.”

This means that courts must respect the structure of the CPC, using Section 151 only where it’s silent.

Similarly, courts cannot use Section 151 to reopen or review final judgments. That territory belongs to Section 114 and Order 47 CPC.

In Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors, AIR 1970 SC 406, the court ruled-

“Inherent powers cannot be used to set aside or review decisions covered under other specific sections.”

 Section 151 is a support beam, not a substitute.

Contemporary Relevance and Judicial Sensitivity

In an era where Indian courts are grappling with overflowing case dockets, procedural delays, and evolving modes of litigation, Section 151 CPC has gained renewed importance. It is no longer a dormant provision pulled out occasionally — it has become a dynamic tool for justice in changing times.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a turning point. With physical courts shutting down and uncertainty looming large, litigants found themselves in situations where procedural timelines and formal requirements couldn’t be met. The judiciary, adapting swiftly, leaned on Section 151 to ensure litigants didn’t suffer for reasons beyond their control.

One notable example is Sudipta Deb v. State of West Bengal, 2021 SCC Online Cal 2562, where the Calcutta High Court invoked Section 151 to grant procedural relief during the pandemic. The Court noted that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and procedural rigidity must give way to substantive justice. Deadlines were extended, hearings rescheduled, and access to justice preserved — all thanks to the inherent flexibility Section 151 provides.

This flexibility is especially critical in today’s digital courtroom environment, where technological glitches, access issues, and unforeseen disruptions are common. Courts must now rely more than ever on discretion rooted in fairness, not just black-letter procedure.

Comparative Jurisprudence: Inherent Powers in Other Legal Systems

India isn’t alone in recognising the need for judicial discretion. Legal systems across the globe have developed similar mechanisms to ensure justice isn’t defeated by technicalities.

Though the UK no longer has an equivalent to Section 151, the Civil Procedure Rules empower judges with wide discretion. Rule 1.1 of the CPR — known as the ‘overriding objective’ — instructs courts to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, echoing the spirit of our Section 151.

In the U.S., Rule 60(b) allows a party to be relieved from a judgment in cases of fraud, mistake, or “any other reason that justifies relief.” This reflects the same principle: substantive justice should always outweigh rigid procedure.

These examples reinforce a simple truth: the need for inherent judicial powers is universal. Justice cannot — and should not — be confined to procedural straightjackets.

The power granted under Section 151 CPC is like a double-edged sword — incredibly powerful when used rightly, but equally dangerous when misused. That’s why the most important question surrounding this provision isn’t whether it should exist, but how courts ensure that it is used wisely and sparingly.

  1. Indicators of Abuse

There have been instances where Section 151 has been misapplied or overextended. Some common warning signs of abuse include:

These instances show that while the intention behind invoking Section 151 may appear noble, its misuse can weaken trust in judicial impartiality and lead to procedural chaos.

  1. Guidelines to Prevent Abuse

Thankfully, Indian courts have developed checks and balances to prevent misuse:

  1. Doctrine of Judicial Discipline
    Judicial discretion is not absolute — higher courts scrutinise the use of Section 151 on appeal, ensuring accountability.
  2. Requirement of Reasoned Orders
    Courts are expected to record clear, reasoned justifications when invoking Section 151. This builds transparency and trust.
  3. Respect for Legislative Intent
    Courts are reminded that Section 151 is meant to be an exception, not a substitute for well-defined procedures. Its use must align with the broader spirit of the CPC, not contradict it.

In essence, balance is the key — allowing flexibility without compromising the rule of law. When applied with restraint and wisdom, Section 151 becomes not a loophole, but a lifeline for justice.

Conclusion- A Tool of Justice, Not a Loophole for Convenience

 What do you do when the rulebook runs out but the injustice still lingers? That’s when Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code quietly walks in — not with noise, but with purpose. It is the court’s invisible anchor, ensuring that law never loses its soul in the pursuit of technicalities.

This provision doesn’t offer a checklist or a rigid framework. Instead, it offers something far more powerful: judicial conscience. Section 151 is the thread that stitches together the gaps in procedure, not to bypass the law, but to breathe justice into it.

Yet with such power comes great responsibility. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer so eloquently put it:

“Justice is not blind; it merely requires balance. And Section 151 is one such balancing pole.”

It must never become a shortcut to override established rules or revive dead claims. Courts are not free agents — they are guardians of fairness, expected to wield this power cautiously and with full awareness of its limits.

The debate isn’t whether this power should exist. It must. The real challenge is ensuring it is used not out of convenience, but out of necessity — and only when the voice of justice would otherwise go unheard.

In that delicate balance lies the true integrity of our civil justice system.

Here are the references (case laws and secondary sources) for the article titled “Discretionary Powers of Courts under Section 151 CPC – Abuse or Necessity”, formatted in ILI/Bluebook style. You can also adapt them for OSCOLA or APA, if needed:

References (Case Laws)


Spread the love
Exit mobile version