N.N.Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS is decree -holder's second appeal questioning the legality of an order by which auction sale has been set aside by the courts below.
(2.) IN pursuance of a money decree against three judgment debtors, nine plots belonging to Defendant No. 2 Nanwa pertaining to khata No. 2(2) having an area of 4 -16 -0 bighas were attached on 8 -3 -1968. When notices under rule 66, Order 21 were Issued certain objections filed by the Respondents as purchasers from the J.D. were dismissed and the property was ultimately ordered to be put up for auction on 7 -11 -1969, on that dale one Aziz holding special power of attorney from the decree holder participated in sale proceedings on his behalf but it was not accepted by the court and was set aside. On 10 -3 -70, the next date also the decree holder remained absent but the aforesaid Aziz again purported to represent him. As there was no other bidder the bid made by Aziz, ostensibly for the decree holder, was accepted for Rs. 1615.49 i.e. the same amount as was due under the decree being executed. Objections under Order 21 Rule 20 Code of Civil Procedure were filed against this auction sale but were rightly dismissed by the courts below as being beyond time. The executing court, however, cancelled the sale in exercise of its inherent powers for reasons recorded by it as it thought that it was an abuse of the process of the court. The appellate court also upheld the decision The Appellant now seeks to challenge the finding on the plea that courts have acted illegally by invoking inherent powers in this case.
(3.) THE main ground urged on behalf of the Appellant is after having found that the objection by the Respondents was barred by time, inherent powers could not have been exercised by the court in view of specific remedy provided in the code for seeking cancellation of an auction sale. It is now well recognized that the courts have ample reserve of power to do justice. Such a power is inherent in the courts even in those cases where specific provision exists in the Code of Civil Procedure. The only limitation being that there should be no conflict with the provisions of the Code. The principle on which the courts function is not that all procedure not sanctioned by law is prohibited but that any procedure which is not prohibited by law is permissible for meeting the ends of justice. The only guiding principle for exercise of this power is that must be for meeting the ends of justice. Therefore, it must be held that despite clear provision the court still possess ample reserve of its inherent powers to do what would meet the ends of justice in a given case.;