Inherent Powers of Supreme Court

  1. Interest of justice — Supreme Court has wide powers to implead a party even after period of limitation if a case of bona fide mistake is made out —  Provision of O.XLI, R.20, C.P.C. not applicable to proceedings before this Court. Nazir Ahmad Khan  v. Muhammad Shaukat Khan & 6 others 1998 SCR 269 (C)
  2. Even if the circumstances have changed during the pendency of lis/cause in the Court, the Supreme Court can still adjudicate, pass, change or alter the order or degree appealed against. Dr. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmed v. Azad Government & 4 others 2006 SCR 283 (B)
  3. Exercise of — Writ petition — Decided without giving opportunity of filing written-statement as no notice issued — Violation of principle of audi alteram partem — Ordinary course to remand the case to the High Court — but in circumstances, disposal of case conclusively by Supreme Court by exercising  inherent powers is warranted. Azad Govt. & 3 others v. M. Younas Abbasi & 12 others 2016 SCR 887 (A) Azad Govt. & others vs. M. Hussain, civil  appeal  No. 294/2015  rel.
  4. —section 42-A, AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974—Order XLIII, AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978—argument: Court cannot go beyond pleadings. Held: Court has got ample powers to decide the matter under the inherent powers in the public interest—and for doing complete justice—even if point not raised by the parties—argument repelled— The learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments submitted that the point formulated by this Court is against the pleadings and under law the Court cannot go beyond the pleadings. It may be observed here that this Court has got ample powers under the provisions of section 42-A of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, read with Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 to take up and resolve the points which have not been raised by the parties in the public interest and for doing complete justice. Thus, keeping in view the importance of the matter this Court formulated/took up the point by exercising the inherent powers conferred by law and the objection raised by of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard having no substance is hereby repelled. AJK Council & others v. Raja Gul Muhammad & 6 others 2017 SCR 1427 (F)
  5. —Article 42-A, AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974–Order XLIII, AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978—application for arraying of necessary party as respondent—allowed in circumstances by the Supreme Court by exercising inherent powers—Preliminary Objection—Admittedly, one of the petitioner in writ petition was not entered as respondent. However, during pendency of appeal an application was moved to enter one petitioner before the High Court, i.e. Muhammad Amin Baig Advocate, as respondent. Held: The Supreme Court under the Constitutional provisions for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it has got the ample powers to pass an appropriate order. Thus while exercising the powers conferred upon the Court under Article 42-A of the Constitution read with Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, along with other enabling provisions of law, the application was accepted and office was directed to make necessary correction/changes in the title of appeal and the concerned record. Mr. Justice Chaudhary Muhammad Muneer v. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan & others 2019 SCR 467 (A) 1998 SCR 269 rel
  6. —Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell—no prayer for alternate relief by plaintiff—allotment made in favour of the vendor had been declared void and cancelled by the competent authority—private respondents filed cognovit—accepted the agreement to sell, where there was a condition that if allottee, the vendor could not get transferred the plot the consideration amount would be returned to the vendee—the Supreme Court exercising inherent powers conferred to it under Constitution, decreed the recovery of Rs. 900000/- in favour of plaintiff-appellant subject to depositing Court fee, and declared entitled to receive same decretal amount from the legal heirs of allottee, vendor, in circumstances. Kamran Zaib v. Khadim Hussain & others  2022 SCR 1114 (G)
error: Content is protected !!