Inherent Powers

Federal Constitutional Court has inherent power to transpose a party, should it be necessary for just and proper adjudication of a matter before it.

Petitioner assailed orders of Family Court and Appellate Court whereby permission was granted to the respondent to implead minor as a decree-holder in the execution petition

Validity

Authority of executing court could not be undermined or narrowly construed to take away an inherent power/authority to allow amendment to remove a defect, sought to be removed within the prescribed period of limitation and without any prejudice to the petitioner; such authority was envisaged under R. 17 of O.XXI, C.P.C.

No embargo was placed on the executing court to allow amendment in the execution, as long as it caused no prejudice and the intended amendment did not travel beyond the decree

Intent and objective to deny fruits of decree to minor, who happened to be a daughter of the petitioner, was mischievous and lacking bona fides

No reason to exercise discretion when no prejudice was caused to the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Court could make such orders as might be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court.

Inherent powers of Civil Court were unlimited to pass order to meet the 'ends of justice or prevent abuse of process of Court'.

Trial Court was not justified to convert the proceedings under S. 491, Cr.P.C. into the proceeding under S. 497, Cr.P.C.

No inherent powers were available to the subordinate judiciary under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 to convert one type of proceedings into another type

Inherent powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. were only available to a High Court.

Civil court was not supposed to resort to the inherent powers in presence of a specific provision available in C.P.C. to deal with a particular situation.

Courts had "inherent powers" to make such orders as might be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court

Courts should not be loath/reluctant to exercise such powers provided party concerned had approached the court with due diligence and sufficient cause had been shown

Sufficient cause was sine qua non for exercise of such powers.

Courts should not be loath/reluctant to exercise inherent powers, provided the party concerned had approached the court with due diligence and sufficient cause had been shown for its non-appearance on the date of hearing

Sufficient cause was sine qua non for exercise of inherent powers

Lis should be prosecuted without fault and default

Prayer to recall order should be backed by cause considered to be sufficient

Restoration of constitutional petition would not serve fruitful purpose

Proceedings should attain finality

Negligence with regard to non-appearance was on record

Applicant had failed to show due diligence and sufficient cause

Application for restoration of constitutional petition was dismissed summarily.

Provision of O.IX, R.9, C.P.C. is designed for restoration of suit wholly or partly dismissed under O.IX, R.8, C.P.C. and it does not speak anything about restoration of application dismissed in default

Absence of necessary provisions do not necessarily lead to absence of jurisdiction in a civil court for restoration of execution application dismissed in default upon proof of sufficient cause

Execution application can be restored in exercise of inherent powers.

Provision of O.IX, R. 9 C.P.C. is designed for restoration of suit wholly or partly dismissed under O.IX, R.8 C.P.C. and it does not speak anything about restoration of application dismissed in default

Absence of necessary provisions do not necessarily lead to absence of jurisdiction in a civil court for restoration of execution application dismissed in default upon proof of sufficient cause

Execution application can be restored'in exercise of inherent powers.

If there is no provision in any law to do a certain thing, then there are incidental powers to perform such an act and such powers are inherent in adjudicating bodies.

Application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Trial Court and revision filed against order of the Trial Court was also dismissed

Though consent was given verbally by the APG for grant of application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., but the Trial Court ignored such concession legally due and extended

With consent of the counsel of the parties, High Court ordered that no private prosecutor would conduct the proceedings on behalf of he complainant; but he could only assist the prosecution in presence of DDA

Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within specified period.

Inherent Powers -Persons asking to exercise-Not guilty of laches: (Obiter).