It is a general understanding that a court by making use of its wide discretionary powers can go on to provide all such reliefs it thinks fit for those who come before it in a hope to secure justice. But the question that needs to be answered is:
Is it just a notion? Or even courts too have a ‘Lakshman Rekha’?
In this short piece of writing, efforts are made to solve this confusion. Basically, I want to begin my explanation from touching on the point Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which speaks about the “Inherent Powers” of the court. So, the term “Inherent” precisely means characteristics that are natural, biological, or innate. Now, another question that springs up in our minds is what actually are “Inherent Powers” of the court? The object of inherent power of the court is to secure the ends of justice and to undo wrong in case of abuse of the process of court. So, to give the readers a momentary idea as to what all generally constitutes ‘Inherent Powers’ of the court, I can list a few illustrations in that direction:
- Enlargement of time: Sec. 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for instance, purposely has vested discretion upon the courts, when it comes to the question of ‘Enlargement of time’, it says – “Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired”. However, Clause 13 seeks to put a limit on enlargement of such period by addition of the words “not exceeding thirty days in total”.
- Power to make up deficiency of court-fees: Again, Sec.149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides the courts with the power to make up for the deficiency with respect to the court-fees, it reads as follows – “Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to Court-fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such Court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance”.
- General power to amend: Sec. 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides the courts with power to make amendments. It reads – “The Court may, at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding”.
Now let us come back to our central topic of discussion – Can a Court grant a relief, which is not prayed for by the Petitioner?
There is neither any provision nor any inherent power that authorizes courts to grant a relief, which explicitly is not prayed for by the Petitioner. The same proposition was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors. MANU/SC/1799/2009. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Appeal before it opined:
“Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the Petitioner”.
Conclusion: After going through the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and drawing insights from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s verdict, it is crystal clear that the courts are well within a ‘Lakshman Rekha’ when it comes to the question of grant of relief. So, to conclude, the takeaway from this article is:
COURTS CANNOT GRANT A RELIEF, WHICH IS NOT PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER.