ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Kirat Pal Singh Dhilon - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Sec. Urban Dept and Others - Respondent
Civil Revision Defective No. - 112 of 2010
Decided On : 27-10-2014
Inherent Powers - Revision of Execution Order - The court held that the inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. cannot be invoked when there is a specific remedy available in the Code. The court cited various judgments to emphasize that inherent powers cannot be used to cut across the powers conferred by the CPC and are not to be used when there is an alternative remedy.
Fact of the Case:
The Executing Court passed an order consigning the execution, stating that the decree stood satisfied. An application was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. stating that the decree is not satisfied and seeking allowance of a specific amount, which was rejected by the Court below.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the application under Section 151 C.P.C. was not entertainable as the remedy of revision was available but not availed. The Court also noted that there was no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error justifying interference in the impugned order.
Issues: Whether the application under Section 151 C.P.C. was entertainable and if there was any justification for interference in the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. cannot be invoked when there is a specific remedy available in the Code. Inherent powers cannot be used to cut across the powers conferred by the CPC and are not to be used when there is an alternative remedy.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision, and any interim order stands vacated.
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Shashank Shekher Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
2. The defect stands removed. Let revision be registered with regular number. As requested by learned counsel for the revisionist, I proceed to hear the revision for admission today itself.
3. The Executing Court passed order dated 30.10.2004 in Execution Case No.80 of 2003 consigning the execution observing that decree stood satisfied. An application was moved under Section 151 C.P.C. stating that decree is not satisfied and still Rs.1,66,155.99 and interest of Rs.68.28 should be allowed, which has been rejected by the Court below by means of impugned order dated 05.07.2010.
4. On repeated query that order passed by Executing Court finalizing execution whether revisable or not, he could not dispute the same but still submit that if there is calculation error, the same could be seen in the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. and for that purpose relied on Single Judge Judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Khoobchand Jain and Anr. Vs. Kashi Prasad & Ors., AIR 1986 Madhya Pradesh 66.
5. However, I find no force in the submission.
6. Section 151 C.P.C. confers inherent power upon the Court to make such orders, as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court. However, if in a matter, specific remedy is available in the Code, the Court shall not invoke jurisdiction under Section 151. In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Roshan Singh (Dead) by LRs. and Ors., 2008(2) SCC 488, the Court clearly said :
"If there are specific provisions of the CPC dealing with the particular topic and they expressly or necessary implication exhaust the scope of the powers of the Court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to a matter, the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the CPC. The inherent powers of the Court are not to be used for the benefit of a litigant who has remedy under the CPC. Similar is the position vis-à-vis other statutes. The object of Section 151 CPC is to supplement and not to replace the remedies provided for in the CPC. Section 151 CPC will not be available when there is alternative remedy and same is accepted to be a well-settled ratio of law.
7. Repeating the similar expression of law, the Court in Durgesh Sharma Vs. Jayshree, 2008 (9) SCC 648 , said:
"It is settled law that inherent powers may be exercised ex debito justitiae in those cases, where there is no express provision in the Code. The said power cannot be exercised in contravention or in conflict of or ignoring express and specific provision of law."
8. A Full Bench of this Court in Mukand Lal Vs. Gaya Prasad and Ors., AIR 1935 All 599, said that inherent powers of the court, would not include a power of revision under Section 115 of the Code, even in cases to which that section is not applicable. It has been the consistent view that Court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151, where the applicant has his remedy provided elsewhere in the Code, and has neglected to avail of the same. [Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. Lallu Singh, (1947) ILR Allahabad 389; Nageswara Prasad Vs. Gudrimall, (1933) 55 All 548; Mt Sukra Vs. Ram Harakh, AIR 1951 All 1951 (FB)]
9. In Velayudhan Nair vs. Kerala Kshemam Yunik Kuries Pvt. Ltd., Trichur, AIR 1988 Kerla 223, it is said that inherent powers cannot be invoked as a substitute for appeal, review or revision.
10. In the present case, if applicant was of the view that Execution Court has wrongly passed final order holding that decree has been satisfied though it is not against such final order of Execution Court, the remedy of revision was available but the same having not been availed, in my view, application under Section 151 C.P.C. was not entertainable and has rightly been rejected by the Court.
11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any illegality, material irreg
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.