SANTOSH CHANDRA DAS Vs. ARJUN CHANDRA DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE scope of inherent power under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, is subject matter of this reference to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The inherent power inheres in a Court. It has its root in the necessity and its breadth is co -extensive with the necessity, as noted in Newabganj Sugar Mills v. Union of India : AIR 1976 SC 1152. Of course, even such a power cannot be exercised against any statutory prescription. It is because of this that the inherent power was held in Padam Sen v. State of U.P. : AIR 1961 SC 218 as a power in addition to those specifically conferred by the Court. This being a complimentry power, the Court is free to exercise it for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 when invocation of the same is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided. The restriction on the exercise of inherent powers on the face of express provision in the Code is, because of the fact that it should be presumed, as observed in Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 327, that the procedure specifically provided by the legislature is dictated by the interest of justice. The limitation on the inherent power may however be express or may be read by necessary implication.

(2.) THESE thoughts have been well summarised in Ram Chand v. Kandhayalal, AIR SC 1899 in these words:

(3.) THE decisions in Ram Chand (supra) and Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. C.I.T. : AIR 1977 SC 1348, show that as to when the inherent power can compliment the express provision. In Ram Chand (supra) due to failure of a Director to appear before the Court who was asked to do so under the provisions of Order 29, Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, the Company's, defence in the suit was struck off. Now a reference to the aforesaid provisions show that this power has not been expressly conferred by the Rule. But as there was no bar express or one following by necessary implication, in passing such an order, it was held by the Supreme Court that in case of default, the Court could make a suitable consequential order under Section 151 as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate, the High Court had refused to answer a reference under the Income Tax Act because of the absence of the party and non -filing of paper book. Subsequently, a petition was filed to dispose of the reference on merits by showing sufficient cause for non -appearance etc. It was held that the High Court had inherent power to recall its earlier orders, as there was nothing in the provisions of the Income Tax Act which either expressly or by necessary implication stood in the way.