APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C. ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT
OF……………………………………………
Suit No……………….. of 19……………….
……………………………………………………………….
Plaintiff
Versus
………………………………………….
Respondents/defendant
Sir,
It is submitted as under:
1. That the abovenoted case is pending before this Hon’ble Court, and
is fixed for……………….
2. That the above case was last fixed for………………. and due
to strike of Advocates the arguments on the application u/s 39 Rules 1
& 2 read with section 151 C. P. C. could not be made before this
Hon’ble Court and the plaintiff could not get the relief in the above
case.
3. That on………………. the Bailiff of the court
of………………. went to the house of the applicant/plaintiff and
directed the plaintiff to handover the possession of the suit premises
to the defendants without any reasons the defendants has filed execution
proceedings, in the Court of………………. and whether the
execution order has been passed or not, and the plaintiff has no
knowledge about the execution proceedings, and has not been served with
any notice of the court in the execution proceedings.
4. That the defendants are trying to take the possession of the suit
premises by playing fraud………………. before the court
of………………. while the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent
injunction alongwith application u/o 39 rules 1 & 2 read with
section 151 C. P. C. but due to strike the plaintiff could not get any
relief from this Hon’ble Court.
5. That the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the
execution proceedings, pending in the court of………………. is not
stayed till the final disposal of the abovesaid suit.
6. That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
applicant and against the respondents.
7. That the applicant has a good prima facie case in her
favour.
8. That the bailiff of the court of………………. has also
visited the house and threatened the plaintiff that he will take the
possession of the suit premises within a day or two.
It is, therefore, prayed that the execution proceedings in the above
case may kindly be stayed and the status quo in favour of the
plaintiff and against the respondents may kindly be granted keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the case.
Applicant/plaintiff.
Through
(Counsel)
Dated:…………… Delhi
Affidavit enclosed.
case law
Section 151
EXERCISE OF INHERENT POWERS
It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether
alternative remedy available would debar invoking inherent jurisdiction
under this section1.
SUO MOW ORDER OF COURT WHEN VALID
Where execution case was dismissed for default in ignorance of the
facts of the case, the mistake was brought to Court’s notice and the
Court acted suo motu and vacated that order. Such order was
correctly passed because none could be prejudiced by a mistake made by
the Court2.
INHERENT JURISDICTION WHEN NOT AVAILABLE
Inherent jurisdiction of a Court under this section cannot be
resorted to when the aggrieved party has got a specific remedy available
under law3.
A Court has no inherent powers to set aside an ex-parte
decree under its inherent powers as there is express provision in
the Code4.
WHEN INHERENT POWERS CANNOT BE INVOKED
Where suit decreed ex-parte application under Order 9
Rule 13 also dismissed in default, the aggrieved party may either
file an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 141 for
restoration of the application dismissed for default or file an appeal
under Order 43 Rule 1. Such alternative remedies being available,
inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked5.
WHEN ORDER REJECTING PLAINT CANNOT BE RECALLED UNDER THIS
SECTION
Where on the date on which the plaintiffs application for extention
of time for payment of defecit court fee and plaint were rejected, the
plaint had become time barred, the order rejecting the plaint could not
be recalled in exercise of powers under this section6.
NO RESTORATION ON BASIS OF STAY ORDER AFTER EXECUTION OF
DECREE FOR POSSESSION.
Where stay order could not be communicated to the bailiff before the
possession was actually delivered to the decree-holders, the stay order
became inoperative. The trial Court is not vested with any inherent
jurisdiction to restore possession to the respondent7.
Inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to vacate the
judgments of the courts below on the ground of fraud by suppressing
certain documents8.
When a memorandum of appeal is presented with proper Court-fees but
out of time, with an application for condonation of delay and if the
delay is not condoned the Court cannot under its inherent powers give a
certificate for refund of the Court-fees paid9.
Appointment of compensation between different claimants under the
Land Acquisition Act cannot be ordered in the exercise of inherent
powers10.
Section 151
INHERENT POWER OF COURT
Nothing can limit or affect the inherent power of court to meet the
ends of justice.11
APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE COMPROMISE DECREEE —
MAINTAINABILITY
Section 151
An application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
setting aside the compromise decree on the allegation that the same is
unlawful, is maintainable under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure
Code.12
POWER TO CORRECT DECREE
The court has got jurisdiction under Section 151 of Civil PC, to
correct the decree when it was interpolated after its passing.13
1. Joy Deb Mukherji v. M/s. William Jacks & Co. (India) Ltd., A.
I. R. 1981 Cal. 267: (1981) 85 C. W. N. 671: (1981) 1 C. H. N. 477.
2. Gopal Chandra v. Hiranya Prova, A. I. R. 1981 Cal. 338: (1981) 85
C. W. N. 949.
3. J. Dorairaj v. V. R. & Co., A. I. R. 1973 Mad. 135.
4. Badri Narain Sharma v. Panchayat Samiti, A. I. R. 1973 Raj.
29.
5. Haji Rustam Ali v. Emannuddin Khan, A. I. R. 1981 Cal. 81.
6. Joy Deb Mukherjee v. M/s. William Jacks & Co. (India) Ltd., A.
I. R. 1981 Cal. 267: (1981) 85 C. W. N. 671: (1981) 1 C. H. N. 477.
7. Paikamma v. Maroti, A. I. R. 1983 Bom. 363: 1983 Mah. L. J.
589.
8. Pokala Ranganayakamma v. Modireddy Venkatachalapati Rao, A. I. R.
1966 Andh. Pra. 91: (1965) 2 Andh. L. T. 250: (1965) 2 Andh. W. R.
487.
9. Eagle Plywood Industries Private Limited v. Amaly Gopal Majumdar
A. I. R. 1966 Cal. 267 (F. B. ) 69 Cal. W. N. 1025.
10. Amar Nath v. State of Punjab, 1966 Cur. L. J. 554.
11. Lakshmi v. Khader Basha, 2001 (4) CCC 137 (Mad.).
12. Babulal v. Smt. Chaturiya, 2001 (1) CCC 23 (MP).
13. Tilya Devi v. Chandrama Singh, 2000 (2) CCC 92 (Pat.).