Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh

Term Paper
On
Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh
Submitted To: -
Safina-E-Ferdous
Lecturer and Coordinator
Department of Law
ASA University Bangladesh
Submitted by: -
Md. Abdul Karim
ID: 13-3-21-0034
Batch: 20th
ASA University of Bangladesh
Date of Submission: 30 July 2017

Dedicated to….
[1] All those who sacrificed a lot to establish peace and
commands of the Almighty through islam;
[2] All those who sacrificed a lot for the independence of Bangladesh;
[3] My parents who sacrificed a lot for growing me up; and
[4] My all teacher who sacrificed a lot for acquiring knowledge.
Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh Page i

Page ii
Foreword
Research is increasingly important as a source of finding in university. It is also used as a measure of
the quality of a university of faculty ,albeit controversially ,through activities such as the Research
Assessment Exceedingly important as a source of finding in university .It is also used as a measure of
the quality of a university of faculty ,albeit controversially ,through activities such as the Research
Assessment Exercise orthe Excellence inResearchinitiative .

Page iii
Declaration
I hereby do solemnly declared that the work presented in this thesis has been carried
out by me and has not been previously submitted to any other institution. The work I
have been presented does not breach any copyright.
I further undertake to indemnify the University against any loss or damage arising from
breach of the foregoing obligations.
Md. Abdulkarim
Student

ASA UniversityBangladesh
Page iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all who insisted me to write this book specially
my family. I am indeed grateful to Safina-E-Fedous the lecturer of ASA University Bangladesh
(ASAUB). He indicates to choses any topic. My every classmate chose many topic and select one
topic which is easy for him and make tamper which are acknowledge to elder brother or sister
or any other person. But I am specifically chose this topic and I am hard work to make a proper
tamper. I am knows that my skill is very small but I am recharge and recharge. When a person
desire to do any act and he obtain him to do this, he did any act. This tamper is very important
for every LAW students because knowledge of “Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh” is
important for law background student. Not only student but also it is important every person
life. I’m interested to acknowledge to you every student uses this, on your handbook. I am tried
to analyze basic thing or use easy language. As a result every person easily acknowledged this. I
hope that every person, that main, my honorable teacher Safina-E-Ferdous like this.

MD:Abdul Karim
Studentof
ASAUniversity Bangladesh
Page v
List of cases
1. Raj Bahadur Ras Raja Vs Seth Hiralal.
2. Rejaul Hoque Vs Afizullah.
3. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd Vs Kanhayalal Bhargov.
4. Bangladesh Shilpa Bank Vs Bangladesh Hotal Ltd.
5. Abu Sama Vs Abu Sayed.
6. Mizanur Rahman Khan Vs Jinnatul Firdous.

Page vi
Common Abbreviations
AD Appellate Division
AIR All India Reports
BLT Bangladesh Law Times
CJ Chief Justice
DLR Dhaka Law Reports
HCD High Court Division
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SPL Special Litigations

TABLE OF CONTENT
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………...i
Foreword ……………………………………………………………………………..ii
Deceleration ……………………………………………………………………………..iii
Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………………..iv
List of Cases ……………………………………………………………………………..v
Common abbreviations ……………………………………………………………..vi
Chapter: One
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Inherent Powers of the Court ………………………………………………………1
1.2 Nature and Scope of S.151 ……………………………………………………....2
Chapter: Two
INHERENT POWER WHEN CAN BE EXERCISED
2.1 To be exercised only for the ends of justice ………………………………………3
2.2 To prevent abuse of process of the Court ………………………………………3
2.3 Not applicable when prohibited by the Code or other statutes ……………………....4
2.4 No applicable when there are specific provisions in the Code ………………………4
2.5 If there is settle principle of law the inherent powers cannot be exercised ………5
Chapter: Three
INHERENT POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT
3.1 Exercise of powers under section 482 CrPC is 5the exception and not rule-inherent
jurisdiction of High Court under section 482 CrPC may be exercised ………………6
3.2 Conditions for use of inherent power ………………………………………………7
3.3 The Supreme Court has reiterated the nature of its power thus ………………………8
3.4 High Court has no power to review own order its under section 482 CrPC ………9
Chapter: Four
APPLE, REVIEW AND REVISION
4.1 Appeal ………………………………………………………………………………10
4.2 Review ………………………………………………………………………………10
4.3 Revision ………………………………………………………………………………10

Chapter: Five
CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………11
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………………………12
Chapter: One
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Inherent Powers of the Court: - There exists an age-old and well-established
principle that every court has power to act ex debito justitiae to do that real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone it exists. Also, it has an inherent duty to prevent
abuse of the existing processes of the court. The Code of Civil Procedure is not exhaustive,
the reason for this being that the legislature is incapable of pre-empting all possible
circumstances which may arise in future litigation, and consequentially for providing the
procedure for the same. The court has, therefore, in many cases, where the circumstances so
require, acted upon the assumption of possession of inherent power. This well established
principle receives legislative recognition in Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which
states that:
S. 151. Saving of inherent powers of the Court.- 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.
Scholars hold the view that in administering justice as prescribe by the Code there are two
shortcomings:
a. There will always be cases and circumstances which are not covered by the
express provisions of the Code wherein justice has to be done. The reason is that
the legislature can forsee only the most natural and ordinary events and no rules
can regulate for all time to come so as to make express provision against all
inconveniences which are infinite in number and so that their disposition shall
express all the case that may probably happen [1].
b. The prescribed rules or procedure may be abused, or so used to give a mere
formality, the significance of substantive effect and this obstruct instead of
facilitating the administration of justice [2].
It cannot be said that in the above circumstances courts have no power to do justice or redress
a wrong merely because no express provisions of the Code or reported decision of a court can
be found to meet the requirements of a case. These are therefore circumstances when the
court can exercise power under section 151 as described inherent powers of the court.
Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh Page - 1

Section 151 does not confer any new powers on the courts but merely saves their inherent
powers to make such as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the
process of the court. Section 151 specifics that inherent powers under section 151 may be
exercised under the following two circumstances.
a. for the ends of justice; and
b. to prevent the abuse of process of the court.
____________________________
1. Hand Book on Advocateship Examination, P: 83
2. Ibid
1.2 NATURE AND SCOPE OF S.151: - The section does not confer any powers, but
only indicates that there is a power to make such orders as may be necessary for achieving
the ends of justice, and also to prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The court is not
powerless to grant relief when the ends of justice and equity so demand, because the powers
vested in the court are of a wide scope and ambit. The Supreme Court observed that ‘the
inherent power has not been conferred on the court; it is a power in the court by virtue of its
duty to do justice between the parties before it’[1].
But, this power of the court is limited to the extent that it cannot be exercised if its exercise is
inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the powers expressly or by necessary
implication conferred under the Code. If there are express provisions exhaustively covering a
particular topic, that give rise to a necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in
respect to that topic in any manner other than that prescribed by the said provision. Further,
the power under S.151 cannot be exercised as an appellate power and it cannot be invoked to
pass administrative and ministerial orders.
In the subsequent chapters an effort will be made to understand when inherent power can be
exercised and when not; when invocation of the section is proper and when it is not; a few
specific cases where S.151 finds application. An analysis in these areas will be made in
context of existing case law.

___________________
1. Raj Bahadur Ras Raja v Seth Hiralal
Chapter: Two
INHERENT POWER WHEN CAN BE
EXERCISED
There are two major objectives the court must take into consideration while exercising
inherent powers recognised under S. 151. Firstly, the powers are to be exercised only for the
ends of justice and secondly, to prevent abuse of process of the court. The powers are not to
be exercised when prohibited or excluded by the Code or other statutes as well as in
situations when there exist specific provisions in the Code applicable to the litigation at hand.
In this chapter an attempt will be made to analyze each of these aspects in some detail.
2.1 TO BE EXERCISED ONLY FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE: - Courts have
inherent power to pass interim orders for ends of justice or to prevent failure of justice. It has
been observed by the Supreme Court that the interests of justice are the prime consideration
in granting or not granting prayers in a petition under S.151 and no rule or procedure can
curtail that power of the court. Where the order of the court below is in the interest of justice,
the higher court can refuse to interfere under S.115, even if the court below has no
jurisdiction to pass such an order. The interference in revision is discretionary and should be
used only in interest of justice and not in a case where interference is not in the interest of
justice. Illustrations of this principle can be found in judgments such as the Patna High Court
holding that, the fact that the dismissal could be reviewed or revised under O 47, should not
come in the way of exercising power under this section. Likewise, interference on the
grounds of safeguarding the rights of the minor as envisaged by S.31 of the Guardians and
Wards Act 1890 was held necessary. The court can also interfere, in the interest of justice,
with an order especially an ex parte order, which has been issued through its mistake, even
suo motu. Like, any other case even in such situation the court cannot grant a relief under
inherent jurisdiction, if the same relief can be granted by another court, under an express
provision of the Code.
2.2 TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT: - According to Mullathe
words ‘abuse of process of courts’, is defined as follows:
Abuse of process of court, is the malicious and improper use of some regular legal
proceedings to obtain an unfair advantage over an opponent. Nothing short of obvious fraud
on the part of a debtor would render him liable to have his petition for insolvency dismissed

on the grounds of ‘abuse of process of court. The term is generally used in connection with
action for using some process of court maliciously to the injury of another person.
The High Court has inherent power under S.151, under Letters patent, and under Art. 215 of
the Constitution to prevent the abuse of its powers. It is an abuse of the process of the court
when the facts germane to the issue were either not disclosed to the court or were misstated.
However, inaccurate facts must be such as to enable the plaintiff to obtain the relief which he
would not have gotten had he disclosed the correct facts. But inaccuracies which did not have
such a result would not be sufficient to dismiss the cause.
Where the court is bound to grant an application, and has no discretion to refuse it, it has no
power to dismiss it on so treacherous a ground of decision, as an ‘abuse of the process of the
court’. Also, where a decree of the first appellate court has become final, by its not having
been interfered with in the second appeal, an application for stay of its execution cannot be
granted on the ground, either of abuse of process of court or in the interest of justice, merely
because a review application against such a decree is pending.
2.3 NOT APPLICABLE WHEN PROHIBITED BY THE CODE OR OTHER
STATUTES: - Through a plethora of judgments, it is well-settled that when a power is to be
exercised by a civil court under an express provision, the inherent power cannot be taken
recourse to. A court has no inherent power to do what is prohibited by the Code. Thus, a
court has no power, after the judgment is signed, to alter or to add to it, as, doing so, would
be in direct contravention of O 20, r 3. Further, this section does not invest in the court,
jurisdiction over matters which are not in its cognisance. Thus, a court cannot under this
section, entertain a suit relating purely to caste, such a suit not being of civil nature; or
entertain a rent suit which can by special law, only be tried by a revenue court. The court also
cannot ignore the provisions of law of limitations by appealing to this section. The court
cannot, by exercise of its inherent powers extend the period of limitation on any grounds of
equity and justice.
A remand of the entire case to the trial court for the purpose of taking additional evidence and
then disposing it off according to law, would not be valid, it being in contravention of
specific provisions of the CPC. Similarly, a court cannot, in the exercise of the powers under
this section, compel a person to undergo a medical examination. Similarly, where the
Representation of the People Act prohibits condonation in filing of a petition, the same
cannot be cured by exercising the inherent powers in the interest of justice.
2.4 NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE
CODE: - In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal it has
been held that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders ex debito justitiae is
undoubtedly affirmed by S.151 but that jurisdiction cannot be used so as to nullify the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where the CPC deals expressly with a particular
matter, the provisions should normally be regarded as exhaustive.
“An Assistant judge set aside an exparte decree not on grounds available under order 9, rule
13 CPC but by taking resort to the inherent powers of the court under section 151 of the
CPC[1]. The Appellate Division held that he cannot draw upon inherent powers while acting
under a specific provision of the Act governing the disposal of the case.
S.151 gives inherent power to the court to make such order as may be necessary for the ends
of justice or o prevent abuse of the process of the court; however same is required to be
exercised by the court when there is no other statutory remedy available to parties to redress
their grievances. The court observed that, the inherent power of the court ‘is in addition to
and complimentary to the powers expressly conferred, but that power will not be exercised if
its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes in conflict with any of the powers expressly or by
necessary interpretation conferred by the other provisions of the Code [2]. If there are express

provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic, they give rise to a necessary implication
that no power shall be exercised in respect of the said topic otherwise than in the manner
provided by the said provision. Whatever limitations are imposed by construction on the
provisions of S.151 of the Code, they do not control the undoubted power of the court to
make a suitable order to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
______________________
1. Rejaul Hoque V Afizullah [42 DLR (AD)
2. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd v Kanhayalal Bhargav
The inherent powers cannot be used to reopen the settled matters. These powers cannot be
restored to when there are specific provisions in the Act to deal with the situation.
The Appellate Division also held that however wide the language may be, the section does
not give the court a blank cheque or an absolute discretion to make any order it pleases [1].
2.5 If there is settled principleof Law the inherent powerscannot be
exercised: -The Appellate Division held in Bangladesh Shilpa Bank v Bangladesh Hotal
Ltd [38 DLR (AD) 70] held that although the expression ‘ends of justice’ used in section 151
of the CPC recognizes wide powers inherently possessed by the court to do justice in a given
case, it must not be supposed that the court can, in disregard to the established principles and
norms of law, make an order. The High Court Division allowed a revisional application under
section 151 of the CPC without assigning any reason how ‘ends of justice’ would be met. The
Appellate Division held that a mere ipse dixit of the court without sufficient reason is not
enough to conclude that the ends of justice would be met if a particular course is followed.
“This Inherent Power cannot be exercised by the trial court where there is remedy by way of
appeal [2]

________________________
1. Md. Hazrat Ali V Joinal Abedin [1986 BLD (AD) 45]
2. Rejaul Hoqe vs. Hazrat Ali.
Chapter: Three
INHERENT POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT
The essential object of criminal law is to protect society against criminals and lawbreakers.
For this purpose, the law holds out threats of punishments to prospective lawbreakers as well
as attempts to make the actual offenders suffer the prescribed the punishment for their crimes.
Therefore, criminal law, in its wider sense, consists of both the substantive criminal law as
well as the procedural criminal law. Substantive criminal law defines offences and prescribes
punishments for the same, while the procedural law is to administer the substantive law.
Our legal system’s law of crime is mainly contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
which has come into force from April 1, 1974. It provides the machinery for the detection of
crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of the guilt
or innocence of the suspected person and the imposition of suitable punishment on the guilty
person. In addition, this Code also deals with the prevention of offences maintenance of
wives, children and parents [1] and public nuisances.
The Code also controls and regulates the working of the machinery set up for the
investigation and trial of offences. On the one hand it has to give adequately wide powers to
make the investigation and adjudicatory processes strong, effective and efficient, and on the
other hand, it has to take precautions against errors of judgement and human failures and to
provide safeguards against probable abuse of powers by the police or judicial officers. This
often involves a “nice balancing of conflicting considerations, a delicate weighing of
opposing claims clamouring for recognition and the extremely difficult task of deciding
which of them should predominate”.
The Code has obviously tried to make itself exhaustive and complete in every respect; and it
has generally succeeded in this attempt. However, if the Court finds that the Code has not
made specific provision to meet the exigencies of any situation, the court of law has inherent
power to mould the procedure to enable it to pass such orders as the ends of justice may
require.
It has however been declared by the Supreme Court that the subordinate courts do not have
any inherent powers. The High Court has inherent powers and they have been given partial
statutory recognition by enacting Section 482 of this Code.
3.1 Exerciseof power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the exception and not
rule– Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may
be exercised :-

1. To give effect to an order under the Code.
2. To prevent abuse of the process of Court.
3. To otherwise secure the ends of justice.
According to Sec 26 of CrPC 1973 Offences below the Criminal Procedure Code
(hereinafter the CrPC) are divided into:
1. Offences under Bangladesh Penal Code 1860 (triable by HC Sessions Court and other
court
____________________________
1. Section 125-128 of Code of Criminal procedure 1898
shown in the 1st Schedule to the CrPC)
2. Offences under any other law (empowers HC when no court is mentioned for any offence
under any law other than IPC to attempt such offences) S482 deals with Inherent powers of
the Court. It is under the 37th Chapter of the Code titled Miscellaneous.
It comes into action when the court acts judicially and passes an order. If order is passed by
Executive officer of State in administrative capacity it has no application. Therefore persons
aggrieved by such order cannot arrive to HC to exercise its inherent power under this section.
As the Inherent powers are vested in HC by law within meaning of Art 21 of Constitution
consequently any order of HC in violation of any right under Art 21 is not ultra vires. Eg.
Cancelling of bail bond by HC thereby depriving a person’s personal liberty.
3.2 Conditions for Use of Inherent Power:- There are several conditions laiddown
by various cases that indicate the circumstances under which this inherent power may be
used. These conditions may be enumerated as follows:
1. The jurisdiction is completely discretionary. The High Court can refuse to use the power.
2. The jurisdiction is not limited to cases that are pending before the High Court. It can
consider any case that comes to its notice (in appeal, revision or otherwise).
3. This power can be invoked only in an event when the aggrieved party is being
unnecessarily harassed and has no other remedy open to it.
4. The High Court, under section 482, does not conduct a trial or appreciate evidence. The
exercise of this power (although it has a wide scope) is limited to cases that compel it to
intervene for preventing a palpable abuse of a legal process.
5. The High Court has the power to provide relief to the accused even if s/he has not filed a
petition under section 482.
6. This power cannot be exercised if the trial is pending before the apex court and it has
directed the session judge to issue a non- bailable warrant for arresting the petitioners.
7. The power under Section 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold but to secure
justice.
8. This power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare
cases, but cannot be held that it should be exercised in the rarest of rare cases – The
expression rarest of rare case may be exercised where death penalty is to be imposed under
Section 302 of IPC but this expression cannot be extended to a petition under Section 482
CrPC.

9. So long as inherent power of Section 482 CrPC is in statute, the exercise of such power is
not impermissible.
10. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
11. Where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when
prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal.
12. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of inherent powers under Section 482
CrPC to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not
disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the
Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same.
13. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the
allegations are accepted in toto.
14. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provisions, as
inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a
wrong in course of administration of justice.
3.3 The Supreme Court has reiterated the nature of its power thus:- “The
powers conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have no limits but more the power more the
cases and caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers. When the exercise of
powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code, it may not always be
necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. Some of the decisions of this Court laying
down principles of Articles 226 and 227 may be referred to.”
1. Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not
prima facie constitute any offence against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the FIR or other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence
justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an
Order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2).
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected
thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence.
4. Where the allegations in the FIR or other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute a non- cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police
without Order of a Magistrate under Section 155(2).
5. Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or statute
concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide intention and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on
the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance.
The Courts have been following these in dealing with requests for quashing criminal
proceedings. The following principles in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the
High Court have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few
exceptions:
1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code itself for
the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
3. That it should to be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other
provision of the Code.
In most of the cases decided during several decades the inherent power of the High Court has
been invoked for the quashing of a criminal proceeding on one ground or the other.
3.4 High Court has no power to review own order its under Section 482
Cr.P.C.:- (a) Court cannot alter or review its judgment or final order after it is signed except
to correct clerical or arithmetical error.
(b) As soon as judgment is pronounced or order is made by a Court, it becomes functus
officio (ceases to have control over the case) and has no power to review, override, alter or
interfere with it.
(c) Power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred on a Court by a specific
or express provision to that effect. (1971) 3 SCC 844 relied.

Chapter: Four
APPEAL, REVIEW AND REVISION
3.1 APPEAL: - An appeal and a second appeal have been held, by the Madras High Court
to lie from an order made under S.151, in execution, or for the restitution; whereas the Lahore
and Patna
High Courts have held that no appeal lies from an order made by a court in its inherent
jurisdiction. No appeal lies against an order of remand under S.151 but revision is
maintainable. Orders granting temporary injunction ex parte or refusing to grant injunction
under S.151 is not appealable. When the order purports to have been passed under S.151 and
not under O 39 r 1 only a revision will lie against the order.
It is well-settled that when an application for maintenance is submitted in partition suit by the
plaintiff, in view of the fact that the property is in possession of the defendant and the
plaintiff is entitled to have maintenance out of the joint family property, such application is
entertained in view of S.151 and not under O 39 or any other provision. Therefore, as against
such order, the miscellaneous appeal is misconceived since O 42 is not applicable to such
orders. Thus, the miscellaneous appeal as against the order against the order of maintenance
was not tenable in law.
3.2 REVIEW: - The review/recall petition against the consent decree would not lie. If the
evidence on record discloses that one party has played fraud on the other party, in such event
the only remedy left over to the party against whom the fraud is played to file a separate suit
for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. But, if it proved that one of the parties has
played fraud on the court, then only the review petition is maintainable under S. 151 Code of
Civil Procedure.
Where order allowing amendment of plaint was absolutely clear and unambiguous, the court
has no inherent power to review its decision duly pronounced.
3.3 REVISION: - After carefully examining the various provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure which provides or contemplates filing of an appeal, Supreme Court found no such
provisions available to the appellant to file an appeal against the order made by the trial court
on an application filed under S.151. Therefore, revision petition against the said order was
not maintainable. Order rejecting application under O 26 r 9, read with S.151 for appointment

of approved value to fix valuation of plaint and machinery is not revisable, in view of
provisions of S. 115 and considering the fact that the impugned order rejecting the
application has not disposed off the suit or proceeding. There is neither any merit nor any
scope for interference by high court, particularly when the very application under O 21 r 29
read with S.151 was not tenable. There is no justification to interfere with the impugned order
in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115. The order if not regular may not be
interfered with revision if it is made irregularly or even improperly unless grave injustice or
hardship would result from a failure to do so. Where the interference is likely to work, not in
the interest of justice but rather against it, the high court will not interfere in its revisional
jurisdiction.
Chapter: Five
CONCLUSION
5.5 Conclusion: - The legislators in forming of the Code of Civil Procedure are incapable
of foreseeing every possible situation which may arise or of creating an exhaustive list of
circumstances in which an existing provision may apply. In the absence of such mechanical
application of law, the court has been recognised to have certain inherent power. This is to
perform the functions of administering justice in cases where provisions of law are not
explicit or applicable. Also in the cases where parties take unfair advantage of process of the
court, it is the courts responsibility to prevent such blatant misuse. Though, this power of the
court is not unduly far-reaching and unrestricted. S.151 which gives legislative recognition to
‘inherent powers’ also makes clear the fact that the powers can be exercised only when such
action is explicitly prohibited by the Code or any other statute; or where there exists a
provision of the Code applicable to the matter at hand. Through various case laws an
analysis has been made in this project to understand the guiding principles for the court in
entertaining a matter under S.151. It has been established that ‘inherent powers’ must be
exercised only for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court as long as it
is not in contravention of any other existing law or provision.
The judiciary forms a fundamental pillar on which a democracy such as India rests. Codified
statutes such as the Code of Civil Procedure aim to make the judicial process as uniform and
unbiased as possible. Yet the legislative process takes due cognisance of the fact that not all
situations can be pre-empted and procedures laid down for the same. S.151 is a mere
reiteration of this very fact as it recognises the courts ability in best granting justice in all
those situations where the Code of Civil Procedure or any other statute is not applicable.
In Abu Sama Vs. Abu Sayed [1] the High court Division held that section 151 undoubtedly
lengthens the hands of the court to pass any order to justice when there is no other remedy
open to the really aggrieved litigant. This principle has also been accepted in Mizanur
Rahman Khan V Jinnatul Firdous [2]
_____________________
1. 48 DLR 141
2. 51 DLR 493

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Halim, Md. Abdul, Handbook on Advocateship Examination, 2016, Seventh edition, CCB
Book Centre, Shop No. 61, Islamia Market, Nilkhet, Dhaka.
Online:
www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/inherent-powers-of-the-court-
constitutional-law-essay.php at 10:37 date: 19/07/2017

Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh

Similar to Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Inherent Power of the Court of Bangladesh