Question: Can injunction be granted for securing ends of justice where the case does not strictly come within the purview of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure? Give reasons. [U.P.H.J.S. 1982] Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [Can injunction be granted for securing ends of justice where the case does not strictly come within the purview… Read More »

Question: Can injunction be granted for securing ends of justice where the case does not strictly come within the purview of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure? Give reasons. [U.P.H.J.S. 1982] Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [Can injunction be granted for securing ends of justice where the case does not strictly come within the purview of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure? Give reasons.] Answer Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code deals with ‘Inherent powers of...

Question: Can injunction be granted for securing ends of justice where the case does not strictly come within the purview of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure? Give reasons. [U.P.H.J.S. 1982]

Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [Can injunction be granted for securing ends of justice where the case does not strictly come within the purview of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure? Give reasons.]

Answer

Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code deals with ‘Inherent powers of court’. The section provides that a court can pass any order for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

According to Section 151 :

“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 the justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padam Sen v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1961 AIR 218] observed that:

“The inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by the Code. They are complementary to those powers and therefore it must be held that the Court is free to exercise them for the purpose mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the exercise of those powers is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the Legislature.”

These observations clearly mean that the inherent powers are not in any way controlled by the provisions of the Code as has been specifically stated in Section 151 itself.

Moreover, there is no such expression in Section 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by Order XXXIX or by any rules made under the Code. It is well-settled that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive for the simple reason that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently providing the procedure for them.

The effect of the expression ‘if it is so prescribed’ is only that when the rules prescribe the circumstances in which the temporary injunction can be issued, ordinarily the Court is not to use its inherent powers to make the necessary orders in the interests of justice, but is merely to see whether the circumstances of the case bring it within the prescribed rule.

If the provisions of Section 94 were not there in the Code, the Court could still issue temporary injunctions, but it could do that in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

No party has a right to insist on the Court’s exercising that jurisdiction and the Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when it considers it absolutely necessary for the ends of justice to do so. It is in the incidence of the exercise of the power of the Court to issue a temporary injunction that the provisions of Section 94 of the Code have their effect and not in taking away the right of the Court to exercise its inherent powers.

The provisions of Section 151 of the Code make it clear that the inherent powers are not controlled by the provisions of the Code. However, those powers are not to be exercised when their exercise may be in conflict with what had been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the Legislature. This restriction, for practical purposes, on the exercise of these powers is not because these powers are controlled by the provisions of the Code but because it should be presumed that the procedure specifically provided by the Legislature for orders in certain circumstances is dictated by the interests of justices. [Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527]

The Supreme Court in the same case held that the civil courts generally have inherent jurisdiction in cases not covered by Rule 1 and 2 of Order 39 to issue temporary injunctions restraining parties to the proceedings before them from doing certain acts. Thus, an injunction can be granted for securing ends of justice under Section 151 even if the case is not covered by Order XXXIX.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

Updated On 2022-04-08T05:02:07+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story