Kerala High Court: Inherent Powers Cannot Normally Be Used to Return Documents When CPC and Civil Rules Already Provide a Procedure

The Kerala High Court has held that courts cannot ordinarily invoke their inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to decide questions relating to the custody or return of documents when specific statutory provisions already govern the matter. The Court clarified, however, that inherent powers may still be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances where intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the judicial process or avert manifest injustice.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the ruling in Sambasivan v. Shylaja Kumari, while examining whether a title deed produced before a court by one party, but never admitted in evidence, could later be returned to the opposite party through an application under Section 151 CPC. The dispute arose from a suit filed by Sambasivan seeking declaration of title and possession over certain property. He alleged that although he had paid the consideration for the property, the respondent, Shylaja Kumari, had caused the sale deed to be registered in her own name. The suit was later dismissed as “not pressed” after an alleged settlement between the parties.

Several years after the disposal of the suit, the respondent filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking return of the original sale deed standing in her name. The deed had been produced before the court by the petitioner but had never been tendered in evidence. The trial court allowed the application, reasoning that the petitioner could not claim a better right over the document than its apparent owner.

The High Court disagreed. Referring to Order XIII Rule 7 CPC and Rule 132 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, the Bench noted that documents not admitted in evidence must ordinarily be returned to the person who produced them and that no separate application is required for such return. Since the title deed had been produced by the petitioner and never admitted in evidence, the statutory framework already prescribed the procedure to be followed.

The Court observed that once a suit is disposed of, the court generally becomes functus officio, meaning its authority over the matter substantially ends. Therefore, inherent powers cannot be used to bypass or contradict express procedural provisions. Relying on decisions of the Supreme Court, including Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Private Ltd. v. Kanhayalal Bhargava and GLAS Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran, the Bench reiterated that inherent powers supplement statutory powers but cannot override procedures specifically provided by law.

At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not laying down an absolute rule. Exceptional situations may arise where deviation from the prescribed procedure becomes necessary to prevent abuse of process or manifest injustice. In such cases, the court must clearly justify why invoking Section 151 CPC is essential. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and dismissed the application seeking return of the sale deed, while leaving it open to the respondent to pursue any other remedy available under law.