Madras HC: Under which circumstances the court can direct forwarding of complaint to police under S 151 of CPC?

 In the case on hand, since, as I have already pointed out, the offence of forgery of Exs. A2 and A3 was committed outside the Court, even before they were produced before the Court, there can be no impediment for the police to register a case. When it was pointed out by this Court to the learned counsel on either side that this Court has power to issue a direction to the Tahsildar, Tambaram to forward a complaint to the police in respect of the above offence of forgery, for registration of a criminal case so as to investigate the same thoroughly to find out the real culprits, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that such power is not available for this Court in a civil proceedings. Of course, it is true that there is no express provision in the Civil Procedure Code specifically empowering a Civil Court to issue a direction either to a party or to a witness to make a complaint to the police. But at the same time, it needs to be noted that there is no prohibition, either express or implied, thereby prohibiting a Civil Court from issuing any direction to a party or a witness to forward a complaint to the police when a serious offence of forgery is alleged. {Para 59}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Second Appeal No. 479 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012

Decided On: 30.03.2015

N. Natarajan Vs. The Executive Officer

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Nagamuthu, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/0811/2015

Print Page

Fraud at the Courthouse Door: When Can Civil Courts Use Section 151 CPC to Set the Criminal Law in Motion?

 Why this question matters

Civil judges increasingly encounter forged documents, fabricated seals, and engineered “fraud on the court” designed to siphon public money or manipulate rights. The immediate civil response is clear: refuse or recall relief obtained by fraud. But a connected and difficult question is: can the civil court itself trigger criminal prosecution, and if so, when and how, under Section 151 CPC?

Supreme Court and High Court jurisprudence now fairly clearly recognises that inherent powers under Section 151 can be used to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings—including by undoing orders obtained by fraud and, in appropriate cases, by directing that serious independent forgeries be reported to the police. This operates alongside, and not in derogation of, the special mechanism for “offences against public justice” under Section 195/340 CrPC, now Section 215/379 BNSS.

Print Page

Whether the court can exercise powers U/S 151 of CPC if other remedy is available to applicant under CPC?

The subsequent judgment of this Court in Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan, (2013) 11 SCC 296 further clarifies the law on the use of the power under Section 151 of the CPC by the Court in cases of fraud and holds as follows:

“13. Section 151 CPC is not a substantive provision that confers the right to get any relief of any kind. It is a mere procedural provision which enables a party to have the proceedings of a pending suit conducted in a manner that is consistent with justice and equity. The court can do justice between the parties before it. Similarly, inherent powers cannot be used to reopen settled matters. The inherent powers of the Court must, to that extent, be regarded as abrogated by the legislature. A provision barring the exercise of inherent power need not be express, it may even be implied. Inherent power cannot be used to restrain the execution of a decree at the instance of one who was not a party to suit. Such power is absolutely essential for securing the ends of justice, and to overcome the failure of justice. The Court under Section 151 CPC may adopt any procedure to do justice, unless the same is expressly prohibited. {Para 33}

xxx

19. In view of the above, the law on this issue stands crystallised to the effect that the inherent powers enshrined under Section 151 CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been provided for in any other provision of CPC. In the event that a party has obtained a decree or order by playing a fraud upon the court, or where an order has been passed by a mistake of the court, the court may be justified in rectifying such mistake, either by recalling the said order, or by passing any other appropriate order. However, inherent powers cannot be used in conflict of any other existing provision, or in case a remedy has been provided for by any other provision of CPC. Moreover, in the event that a fraud has been played upon a party, the same may not be a case where inherent powers can be exercised.”

(emphasis supplied)

34. The High Court, relying upon the above judgments of this Court which recognizes the power to recall, seems to have lost sight of the restrictions imposed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, which were elaborately discussed by this Court in the above referred judgment about exercising of the power under Section 151 of the CPC being only in circumstances where alternate remedies do not exist.

35. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that recalling a final decree in such circumstances cannot be countenanced under Section 151 of the CPC. The High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, to hear and pass a detailed judgment recalling its earlier final decree dated 19.09.2013, rather than directing the respondents to pursue the effective alternate remedies under law. Having said the above, we must clarify that we are not, in any way, doubting the proposition of law that fraud nullifies all proceedings, or that the Court has power to recall an order which was passed due to a fraud played on the Court. However, while exercising the power under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the final judgment and decree, the Division Bench should have taken into consideration the restriction which was observed by this Court in the captioned judgment. Once we have come to the irresistible conclusion that exercising power under Section 151 CPC in the facts and circumstances of the case is bad, we are not inclined to go into further issues that were extensively argued.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5784 OF 2022 (@ S.L.P (CIVIL) NO. 7015/2022) 

MY PALACE MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs B. MAHESH & ORS.

Coram: N.V. RAMANA; CJI., KRISHNA MURARI; J., HIMA KOHLI; J. 

Author: N.V. Ramana, CJI

Dated: AUGUST 23, 2022

Print Page

Whether the court can grant interim maintenance to wife in proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights under muslim law?

The above mentioned Full Bench judgment of Orissa High Court is also quoted with approval in para 36, 37 and 38. At the end of para 38, it has been stated that inherent power of a Court, as is well known, can be denied only by way of statutory interdiction. There does not exist any provision either in Civil Procedure Code, or in the Act, disbelieving the Court from granting interim maintenance". In para 45, it is also held that independent of inherent powers under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, even under the provisions of Act itself, by necessary implication, power has been conferred in the Court to grant interim maintenance to wife and minor children where circumstances so warrant.

13. Thus, the Full Bench judgments above clearly show that in a suit cognizable under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, the power to grant interim maintenance is available to Civil Court. The same power is also available to Family Court. Here, though the parties are Mohammedan, the maintainability of proceedings is not in dispute and hence till the question of entitlement to final relief remains pending for adjudication, Case before the Family Court is not for recovery of maintenance and, it has jurisdiction and power to award interim maintenance to the respondent - wife during restitution proceedings. The Family Court has correctly appreciated the law on the point.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 3232 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2010

Mohammed Anis-Ul-Haq Vs. Asma Anjum

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0908/2010

Print Page

Whether the court can restore insolvency petition dismissed in default on the application of one of the creditors?

 The learned Assistant Judge considered that the petitioning creditor sues on behalf of the general body of creditors and, therefore, in a sense every creditor is a party to the proceedings and that under Order IX, Rule 9, any party to the proceeding can ask for a petition dismissed for default being restored to file. But Order IX, Rule 9, refers specifically to the plaintiff who has to satisfy the Court that he has sufficient cause for non-appearance, and it is doubtful whether it was competent to the shop of Laxminarayan Sitaram to apply under Order IX, Rule 9, for a revival of the petition.

7. But the question still remains whether the Court did not have inherent jurisdiction to restore the application to file at the instance of one of the creditors. Under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code the Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In my opinion the ends of justice do require in the peculiar circumstances of this case that the application should be restored to file, and that, therefore, the two lower Courts were right in passing the order that they did.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 87 of 1944

Decided On: 17.11.1944

 Keshav Appa Bhagat  Vs.  Sitaram Hanumandas

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Rajadhyaksha, J.

Citation:1944 SCCONLINE 79: AIR 1946 Bom 20:MANU/MH/0133/1944

Print Page

Whether civil revision is maintainable against the order passed in the application under S 151 of CPC?

 Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. The revision has to be admitted. I do not find any force in the contention that an order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being discretionary is not revisable . An order under Section 151, C.P.C. is not appealable hence revision is maintainable against such order.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 1072 of 1998

Decided On: 31.08.1998

Zakinaben  Vs. Babubhai Alimohmad Kapadia and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.C. Srivastava, J.

Citations: AIR 1999 Guj 118, (1999) 1 GLR 122,MANU/GJ/0235/1998

Print Page

Whether the Appellate court can permit conversion of the civil appeal into cross-objection?

The Appellate Bench of the Court appears to have also considered various judgments cited at the Bar on the applicability of Section 151 of the Code. The court held that the provisions of Section 151 could be invoked, only when there was no specific provision to deal with the issue. Though the relevance of this principle has not been fully stated by the court in the context of the issue at hand, the emphasis appears to be on the fact that there is a specific provision, namely, Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code, whereunder the respondent to an appeal could file a cross objection; that provision did not provide for conversion of an appeal into a cross-objection; and therefore, there was no scope to allow conversion of the present appeal into a cross-objection. No doubt there is no specific provision to permit this, but there is equally no specific provision barring the court from ordering such conversion. Since a cross-objection was anyway maintainable and there was no specific provision barring conversion of an appeal into cross-objection, there was a legitimate case for invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code and ordering such conversion. The provisions exist for enabling civil courts to do complete justice, when a particular course seems to be advisable or just, but there is no specific provision to allow such course. The provision cannot be resorted to, however, when a specific provision of law bars such a course, either expressly or by implication.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained. Rule is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order and allowing the Petitioners' application, being Exhibit '10'. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 93 of 2017

Decided On: 06.09.2019

 Nelufer Behram Irani  Vs. Asha R. Kotian and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Gupte, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2612/2019,2020(2) MHLJ703

Print Page