Ex Debito Justitiae and the Code of Civil Procedure in India

Ex Debito Justitiae and the Code of Civil Procedure in India: A Scholarly Analysis

Introduction

The Latin maxim ex debito justitiae, meaning "from a debt of justice" or "as a matter of right," encapsulates a fundamental principle underpinning the administration of justice. It signifies a remedy or an action that a court is bound to grant or take when specific legal and factual predicates are established, particularly where a denial would result in manifest injustice or perpetuate a wrong. In the context of Indian civil jurisprudence, this principle, though not explicitly codified in its entirety, permeates the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), primarily through the invocation of the inherent powers of the court and in the interpretation of various procedural provisions. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine of ex debito justitiae as it interfaces with the CPC, drawing upon landmark judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions relevant to Indian law.

The application of ex debito justitiae often arises in situations involving procedural irregularities, fraud, violations of natural justice, or jurisdictional errors, where the court's intervention becomes imperative to uphold the sanctity of the judicial process and ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. This analysis will explore the conceptual underpinnings of the doctrine, its relationship with Section 151 of the CPC, and its application in various procedural contexts, supported by an examination of the reference materials provided.

Conceptual Moorings of Ex Debito Justitiae

The doctrine of ex debito justitiae signifies a remedy to which an applicant is entitled as of right, as distinct from a discretionary remedy (Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd., In Re, Bombay High Court, 1968). It underscores the court's duty to correct its own errors or to intervene where its process has been abused or has led to a miscarriage of justice. Lord Denning's exposition in A/s Cathrineholm v. Norequipment Trading Ltd. (1972 2 All ER 538), though considered restrictive by some, highlighted that if a judgment is irregular (i.e., ought not to have been signed at all), the defendant is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside (Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra And Another, Supreme Court Of India, 2002, quoting Lord Denning). The true purport of the maxim relates to and arises from the concept of justice; if there is an infraction of this concept, the law courts cannot remain silent (Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra And Another, Supreme Court Of India, 2002).

The Supreme Court of India has emphasized that no man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure or irregularities. Rules or procedures are the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of justice. Ex debito justitiae, the court must do justice, and if a man has been wronged, so long as it lies within the human machinery of administration of justice, that wrong must be remedied (Hdfc Bank Ltd. And Others Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India And Others (S), Supreme Court Of India, 2022).

Ex Debito Justitiae and Section 151 of the CPC: The Inherent Powers of the Court

Section 151 of the CPC saves the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. This provision is often the conduit through which the principle of ex debito justitiae is given effect. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 CPC (National Institute Of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, Supreme Court Of India, 2004; Shakuntala Devi v. Nain Singh And 7 Others, Allahabad High Court, 2013).

However, Section 151 CPC is a procedural provision and does not confer substantive rights. It enables a party to have the proceedings of a pending suit conducted in a manner consistent with justice and equity (Ram Prakash Agarwal And Another v. Gopi Krishan (Dead Through Lrs.) And Others, 2013 SCC 11 296, Supreme Court Of India, 2013). Inherent powers may be exercised ex debito justitiae in those cases where there is no express provision in the CPC, but these powers cannot be exercised in contravention of, or in conflict with, or upon ignoring express and specific provisions of the law (Ram Prakash Agarwal And Another v. Gopi Krishan (Dead Through Lrs.) And Others, 2013 SCC 11 296, Supreme Court Of India, 2013; National Institute Of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, Supreme Court Of India, 2004). Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive (Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527, as cited in National Institute Of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, Supreme Court Of India, 2004).

The power exercised under Section 151 CPC is often ex debito justitiae. For instance, if an appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 151 CPC, an application to set aside such dismissal invokes the inherent power of the court, and such power is exercised ex debito justitiae (G. Christhudas And Another v. Anbiah (Dead) And Others, 2003 SCC 3 502, Supreme Court Of India, 2003).

Applications of Ex Debito Justitiae in Procedural Law

The principle of ex debito justitiae finds application in various procedural scenarios under the CPC, ensuring fairness and rectifying injustices.

Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders and Decrees

A significant area where ex debito justitiae is invoked is in setting aside ex parte orders or awards. The Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal And Others (1981 SCC L&S 309, Supreme Court Of India, 1980) held that an Industrial Tribunal has the authority to set aside an ex parte award. The Court reasoned that procedural defects necessitate ex debito justitiae corrections, granting tribunals inherent authority to rectify inadvertent errors and ensure fairness, especially when a party is prevented from being heard due to sufficient cause. Though this case pertained to Industrial Tribunals, the underlying principle of correcting procedural injustice ex debito justitiae is applicable to civil courts under the CPC as well, particularly when read with Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 151 CPC.

Recall of Orders and Judgments

Courts possess inherent powers, often exercised ex debito justitiae, to recall their orders under specific circumstances. These circumstances typically involve:

It is important to distinguish such recall from the power of review, which is typically governed by specific statutory provisions like Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC. While review is often limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter, the power to recall ex debito justitiae addresses more fundamental defects that vitiate the proceedings themselves.

Addressing Procedural Irregularities and Miscarriage of Justice

The courts are duty-bound to ensure that procedural laws facilitate justice rather than obstruct it. As observed in Hdfc Bank Ltd. And Others Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India And Others (S) (Supreme Court Of India, 2022), "No man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities... Ex debito justitiae, we must do justice to him." This principle allows courts to intervene when procedural lapses lead to substantive injustice. For instance, an appellate court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to order a remand if it is considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiae, even if not strictly covered by specific rules like Order XLI Rules 23 or 25 CPC (Harikishan v. Smt. Anandi, 2006 SCC ONLINE P&H 1080, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2006, citing P. Purushottatn Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd.).

The Supreme Court, in its unique position as the apex court, has also recognized its inherent power to reconsider its judgments ex debito justitiae in exceptional circumstances to rectify gross miscarriages of justice, even after dismissal of a review petition. This forms the basis of the curative petition jurisprudence (Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra And Another, 2002 SCC 4 388, Supreme Court Of India, 2002). Such power is exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice.

Limitation Aspects

An interesting aspect arises concerning limitation for applications seeking relief ex debito justitiae. In G. Christhudas And Another v. Anbiah (Dead) And Others (2003 SCC 3 502, Supreme Court Of India, 2003), the Supreme Court held that if an appeal is dismissed under Section 151 CPC, an application invoking the inherent power of the court under Section 151 CPC to set aside such an order is not one which a party is required to make under any specific provision of the CPC for setting in motion the machinery of the court. Consequently, Article 122 of the Limitation Act (which prescribes limitation for restoring suits or appeals dismissed for default) would not apply. Instead, such an application would be governed by the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of three years from when the right to apply accrues.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Pronouncements: A Synthesis

The reference materials provide a rich tapestry of judicial thought on ex debito justitiae within the CPC framework:

  • Budhia Swain And Others v. Gopinath Deb And Others (1999): Clarified that while statutory review powers (like under Section 38-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act) are specific, courts retain inherent power under Section 151 CPC to recall orders obtained by fraud or court mistakes, though this power is to be exercised cautiously.
  • A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak And Another (1988): Established that the Supreme Court can recall its directions issued per incuriam if they violate statutory mandates or fundamental rights, emphasizing the duty to correct its own errors to prevent injustice.
  • Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996): Strongly affirmed that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and courts have inherent power under Section 151 CPC to set aside judgments procured by fraud, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
  • Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal And Others (1980): Underscored the tribunal's power to set aside an ex parte award ex debito justitiae due to procedural unfairness, highlighting that such powers are ancillary to the effective discharge of judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
  • Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra And Another (2002 SCC 4 388 & 2002 SC): Articulated the Supreme Court's power to entertain curative petitions ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of its process and cure gross miscarriages of justice, even after dismissal of review, based on grounds like violation of natural justice or apprehension of bias. The Attorney-General's submission that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to exercise this inherent power for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court was noted.
  • Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court Of India And Others (2016): Reiterated the grounds for relief ex debito justitiae in the context of curative petitions, focusing on violations of natural justice and judicial bias.
  • National Institute Of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara (2004/2005): Cautioned that inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, though available for orders ex debito justitiae, cannot be exercised to nullify or bypass express provisions of the Code, such as Section 10 CPC. This principle was also affirmed in Ram Prakash Agarwal (2013) and Shakuntala Devi (2013).
  • Hdfc Bank Ltd. And Others Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India And Others (S) (2022): Championed the cause of substantive justice over procedural technicalities, asserting the court's duty to act ex debito justitiae to remedy wrongs.
  • G. Christhudas And Another v. Anbiah (Dead) And Others (2003): Clarified the application of limitation periods for applications made under Section 151 CPC for setting aside orders passed in the exercise of inherent powers, linking it to the concept of ex debito justitiae.

The judiciary's role in discovering truth is also paramount. As noted in M/S Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt Ltd v. M/S Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors (Delhi High Court, 2019), citing Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, the truth should be the guiding star, and it is the duty of the Judge to discover the truth to do complete justice. This duty inherently aligns with the principles of ex debito justitiae.

The Balancing Act: Finality of Judgments v. Ends of Justice

A crucial aspect of civil litigation is the principle of finality of judgments. Once a matter is adjudicated, it should ordinarily attain quietus to ensure legal certainty and prevent endless litigation. However, the doctrine of ex debito justitiae introduces a necessary counterbalance. It acknowledges that the pursuit of finality cannot be at the cost of perpetuating a manifest injustice, especially when such injustice stems from fundamental flaws in the proceedings like fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or egregious violations of natural justice. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence, particularly in cases like Rupa Ashok Hurra, reflects this delicate balancing act. While emphasizing the finality of its judgments, the Court carved out a narrow exception through curative petitions to address situations where its process might have led to a gross miscarriage of justice, thereby acting ex debito justitiae.

This balance ensures that while the system strives for conclusiveness, it does not become so rigid as to be incapable of correcting its own grave errors. The invocation of ex debito justitiae is, therefore, not a routine affair but an exceptional measure reserved for situations where the very foundations of justice are shaken.

Conclusion

The principle of ex debito justitiae serves as a vital undercurrent in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ensuring that the procedural framework remains a tool for achieving substantive justice rather than an impediment. Primarily channelled through the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC, this doctrine empowers courts in India to intervene and rectify wrongs that arise from fraud, violations of natural justice, jurisdictional errors, or grave procedural irregularities. Landmark judgments have consistently affirmed the courts' duty to act ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, even if it means recalling or setting aside their own orders in compelling circumstances.

While the exercise of such power is subject to the limitation that it cannot contravene express statutory provisions, its existence is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. The careful and judicious application of ex debito justitiae allows the Indian legal system to navigate the inherent tension between the need for finality in litigation and the paramount obligation to deliver justice. It ensures that the "majesty of the law" (M/S Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt Ltd v. M/S Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors, Delhi High Court, 2019) is upheld not merely through adherence to form but through the unwavering pursuit of truth and fairness.