Inherent powers of court

2025 PCrLJ 1462 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-A, 154 & 239(b)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionInherent powers of CourtConsolidation of different FIRsScope

Petitioner was not initially named in any of the FIRs, however he was later implicated on the allegation that he, in collaboration with other PTI leaders, incited public unrest through social media statements and thereby abetted the events of 9th May, 2023, which continued over the following days

Petitioner contended that the allegations across the said FIRs were substantially similar, but the authorities had artificially split a continuous sequence of events into multiple cases, said FIRs should be consolidated under the doctrine of sameness and tried in a single proceedings

Validity

In the present case, each FIR arose from a distinct occurrence that took place at a different time and, in some instances, at a different location

Said events involved separate accused persons, acts of violence and evidentiary material, albeit all were said to have been precipitated by a common political development

Petitioner had been implicated in all those FIRs on the allegation that he abetted the violence through social media messaging

While his alleged conduct might have been broadly similar across the cases

Acts of violence forming the subject matter of the respective FIRs were neither identical nor part of a single transaction

As such, the doctrine of sameness did not justify a blanket consolidation of all FIRs

Petition having no merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 PCrLJ 1462 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-A, 180(a) & 239Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionInherent powers of CourtTransfer of cases to another districtScope

Petitioner was not initially named in any of the FIRs, however, he was later implicated on the allegation that he, in collaboration with other PTI leaders, incited public unrest through social media statements and thereby abetted the events of 9th May, 2023, which continued over the following days

Petitioner requested for the transfer of all the cases to F-(Faisalabad), where proceedings arising from identical allegations were already pending adjudication, for a joint trial

Validity

Although S.239, Cr.P.C., and the doctrine of sameness both employed the concept of a "same transaction", they operated in distinct legal spheres and serve different purposes

Section 239,Cr.P.C., was a permissive procedural provision that allowed the joinder of accused persons in a single trial, subject to statutory criteria

In contrast, the doctrine of sameness was a judicially developed principle rooted in procedural fairness that protected individuals from facing multiple prosecutions for the same alleged conduct

While the two might have intersected in some instances, particularly where overlapping factual allegations arose, their legal foundations and objectives remained separated

As to whether several occurrences or episodes constituted one legal transaction was a question of fact that had to be determined by reference to the evidence and circumstances of each case

In the present case, while most FIRs described incidents were separated by time, location and actors, some FIRs, such as those registered at Sarwar Road Police Station (FIR Nos. 103, 108, and 109 of 2023) appeared to involve events unfolding within a short period and in close physical proximity, possibly with overlapping participants and context

In such limited instances, the competent Court might have considered a joint trial under clause (a) or (b) of S.239, Cr.P.C., if the factual record supported it

However, a general consolidation of all FIRs across police stations was not warranted, as the incidents were too dispersed and varied to satisfy the "same transaction" standard

Petitioner's request for consolidation of all the subject cases and their transfer to District F-(Faisalabad) was also untenable for the same reasonsbased on the same erroneous construction of S.180, Cr.P.C.

Petition having no merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 CLD 598 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.16 & 30Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151Inherent powers of CourtArbitration proceedingsConstruction contractVariation in contract termsInstruction by Engineer for early completion deemed variation under the originally settled termsCost escalation and entitlement to compensationBinding nature of directions issued under contract and their impact on performance and compensation

The National Highway Authority (NHA), the Appellant, awarded a contract to M/s Hussain Cotex Limited (Respondent No. 1) for the construction of a bridge over the River Chenab at Sher Shah, District Muzaffargarh

The contract, signed on 04.02.2005, was to commence on 25.02.2005 and be completed in 30 months (by 28.08.2007) with a total value of Rs. 845 million

Respondent No. 1 initially planned to perform piling in the riverbed during low flow seasons, however, on the direction of the Appellant's Engineer, the strategy was revised to complete one of the two bridges earlier (by 14.08.2006) to facilitate urgent traffic diversion

This instruction was considered a variation under Clause 51.1(f) of the Contract, as it imposed work during high-flow seasons, increasing costs

A dispute arose over additional compensation claimed by Respondent No. 1 due to this change

The engineer and resident engineer initially assessed the compensation rate at Rs. 77.83/m³ for the earth platform

Respondent No. 1 submitted a revised rate of Rs. 169.66/m³, which the Appellant rejected, leading the matter to arbitration

The sole arbitrator issued an award on 10.04.2010, accepting that the engineer's directive constituted a contractual variation under Cl. 51.1(f) and awarded compensation at Rs. 77.83/m³

Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed an application under S. 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and S. 151, C.P.C. to set aside the award, which was dismissed by the Trial Court against which the appeal was filed

Appellant argued that the Arbitrator did not allow proper opportunity to lead evidence, amounting to misconduct

Held: The findings of sole arbitrator were based on documents placed on record and arguments of both parties

Since NHA raised no objection during the proceedings of the award, such objection could not be raised before the Trial Court or before the High Court, hence it was not a misconduct

The work undertaken in respect of the earthen platform and the comprehensive revision of the work methodology entailed by the Appellant's change instructions and requirements during the course of project, added considerably and enhanced the cost of Respondent No.1

It was fairly held by the arbitrator that appellant could not be allowed to wiggle out of his financial liabilities on the basis of a mere technicality

In the circumstances the appeal having no force was dismissed

Appeal dismissed.

2023 PLD 275 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12(2) & 151Challenging the validity of judgment or order on the basis of fraud and misrepresentationConversion of application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. into application under S. 151, C.P.C.Inherent powers of courtExercise of

Petitioner withdrew his suit on the basis of compromise but the cheque on the basis of which the compromise was affected was dishonoured with remarks "payment was stopped by the drawer"

Petitioner's application under S.12(2) read with S.151, C.P.C. was accepted by Trial Court restoring the suit of the petitioner but revisional court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court

Validity

Trial Court had rightly exercised inherent jurisdiction under S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because valuable rights of the petitioner were involved and he could not be knocked out of the arena of litigation merely on the basis of technicalities

Courts are to protect the valuable rights of the parties, that is why the inherent powers under S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been conferred upon the Courts

Revisional Court, without keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand had roamed in oblivion, because an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. could be converted into application under S. 151, C.P.C. in order to administer safer justice to the litigant public, whose interest were being infringed on the basis of order obtained by fraud

Impugned order was set aside and petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2021 PLD 59 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 151Inherent powers of CourtScope

Consolidation of suits was prerogative, which was to be exercised on the dictate of the justice to avoid contradictory judgments and for better administration of justice

Though no provision for consolidation of civil suits was provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but the Court could consolidate different suits to avoid conflict of judgments if the parties in the suits were the same and the cause of action was common

Parties, in the present case, had filed separate suits against each other before the Trial Court about the same property

Admittedly, subject-matter of the two suits, was the same and if the suits would have been adjudicated separately there was likelihood of conflicting judgments subject matter of the suits being the same it was proper in the interest of justice that they (suits) be consolidated

Despite the fact that the two suits were at different stages of adjudication, they should be heard together

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned orders and the judgments passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 PLD 688 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 151Inherent powers of courtScope

Every court was deemed to possess all powers which are necessary to do the right and to undo the wrong, in the course of administration of justice and law recognized and left unfettered inherent powers of a Court to act ex debito justitiae.

2020 CLC 1119 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.151Inherent powers of courtScope

Court in order to secure ends of justice can correct a mistake or set aside an order based on illegality under S. 151, C.P.C.

2016 CLCN 57 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 151Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-AInherent powers of courtScopeScope of S.151, C.P.C. compared with S.561-A, C.P.C.

Provisions of inherit jurisdiction could only be exercised during pendency of a suit, when no other appropriate and specific provision relating thereto was available in the C.P.C.

Jurisdiction under S.151, C.P.C. was termed as an inherent jurisdiction

Civil court in its original jurisdiction, appellate court or the High Court could exercise such powers under S.151, C.P.C. but under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, provisions of S.561-A could only be exercised by the High Court alone and the trial court or the appellate court could not exercise such jurisdiction.

2016 CLCN 57 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 151 & 152Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.31 & 42Suit for declarationApplication for correction of error in the compromise deedInherent powers of courtScope

After decision of the suit petitioner filed application for correction of clerical mistake/error in the compromise deed which was dismissed

Validity

Once lis was decided, the court passing the decree would become functus officio and could not re-open/re-enter into the matter except review of the judgment

Provisions of inherent jurisdiction could only be exercised during pendency of a suit, when no other appropriate and specific provision relating thereto was there in the C.P.C.

Jurisdiction under S.151, C.P.C. was termed as an inherent jurisdiction

Civil court in its original jurisdiction, appellate court or the High Court could exercise such powers under S.151, C.P.C. but under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, provisions of S.561-A could only be exercised by the High Court alone and the trial court or the appellate court could not exercise such jurisdiction

Section 152, C.P.C. dealt with correction of clerical and typographical mistakes occurring inadvertently in the judgment and decree or order apparent on the face of the record and without such exception no judgment and decree or order of a court could be reviewed/revisited/altered/modified

Both the provisions of Ss.151 & 152, C.P.C. including review could not be invoked in the present case

Application under S.151, C.P.C. was not maintainable

Question of law could be considered at any stage and a party could not be left to suffer on account of technicalities

In the present case, there was difference in the two terms and words to be inserted in the compromise deed which would change the scenario

For correction of entries in a compromise on account of fraud or mutual mistake one had to file a separate suit

Better course for the Trial Court was to have returned the application

Impugned order was modified and application was returned as not maintainable

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

2014 CLC 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVIII, R. 1, O. XX, R. 12 & S.151Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115Partition Act (IV of 1893), S. 4Suit for partitionApplication for preliminary decree for possession and mesne profitsFurnishing of suretyEstoppelInherent powers of court

Plaintiff filed suit for partition wherein she moved an application for preliminary decree for possession and mesne profits which was dismissed however, Trial Court directed defendant to furnish surety amount

Defendant filed application for reduction of the same which was dismissed

Validity

Impugned order was passed with the consent of parties

Defendant was estopped to challenge the validity of said order on the principle of estoppel

Defendant while filing application for reduction of surety amount was satisfied with the nature of order but was aggrieved of the quantum of surety amount

Defendant could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate

No misexercise of jurisdiction nor any illegality, irregularity, perversity or infirmity was found in the impugned order

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 2016 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O.VII, R.11Rejection of plaintScopeInherent powers of CourtScope

Suit which on the face of it, was barred because of an express or implied embargo imposed upon it under the law should not be allowed to further proceed and court should reject the plaint under its inherent power

Still born suit should be properly buried, at its inception

Plaint having been being found to be barred by law, attracting the principle of res-judicata as well as estoppel, by conduct had rightly been rejected.

2014 CLC 1080 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 151 & O. XXII, R. 3Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12Suit for specific performance of contractRefund of earnest money from the defendantInherent powers of courtScope

Plaintiff filed suit wherein one of legal heirs on his death moved an application for refund of earnest money paid by his father to the defendant

Validity

Prayer for refund of earnest money was out of purview of the pleadings

Inherent powers under S.151, C.P.C. could not be stretched to change the complexion of a suit from the suit for specific performance of contract to the suit for refund of money

Legal heirs of the plaintiff had not been impleaded nor any application for the same had been moved

No material was on record whether applicant was the legal heir of the deceased

None of the legal heirs of deceased had authorized the applicant to claim/seek refund of earnest money from the defendant through court

Earnest money, if same was refundable, could not be refunded to the legal heirs unless they were impleaded in the suit or they produced succession certificate to claim the refund as legal heirs of the deceased

Application for refund of earnest money was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 407 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 151Inherent powers of courtCourt under S.151, C.P.C. was vested with the powers to pass any order

Power so conferred in civil court was known as the inherent power of the court, which basically was meant to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to shorten litigation and to do complete justice between parties; as well as mould relief according to altered circumstances in the larger interest of justice

Such powers, however, would remain subject to exercise of discretion to be exercised judicially in proper cases only.

2013 CLC 1669 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 2, 3 & S.151Institution of summary suit on negotiable instrumentApplication for exemption to furnish bank guaranteeInherent powers of court

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money wherein application for permission to appear and defend the suit was moved which was accepted by the Trial Court and defendant was granted conditional leave to defend the suit by furnishing bank guarantee

Defendant filed application under S.151, C.P.C. for exemption to furnish bank guarantee which was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Trial Court should have allowed the parties to adduce evidence

Defence taken by the defendant was not illusory

Condition of furnishing bank guarantee was based upon the pendency of criminal cases

Triable issue had been raised by the defendant

No sufficient ground existed for imposition of condition of furnishing bank guarantee

Appeal was accepted.

2007 PLC(CS) 959 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 151Inherent powers of CourtInherent power of civil Court to do right and undo wrong were preserved and kept by S. 151, C.P.C.

Where claw conferred jurisdiction, it also would grant powers of doing all such acts as were legitimate and were necessary for its execution.