Section 151 CPC cannot recall a final decree when an effective remedy exists; prior involvement may warrant recusal.

Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to recall or unsettle a final decree where the Code provides an effective remedy such as appeal, review, revision or a fresh suit; those powers are confined to filling procedural gaps and securing justice, and they cannot override express procedural safeguards. On judicial bias, the governing standard is whether a right-minded person would perceive a real likelihood of bias, so prior appearance in connected proceedings may justify recusal where it creates an appearance problem. The text also notes that recusal would have been the safer course, although that did not affect the outcome described.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could recall a final decree in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when effective remedies under the Code were available; (ii) Whether the participation of a judge who had earlier appeared in connected proceedings required recusal on the ground of bias.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could recall a final decree in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when effective remedies under the Code were available.

Analysis: Inherent powers under Section 151 are available only to meet procedural gaps and to secure the ends of justice, and they cannot be used in conflict with express provisions of the Code or as a substitute for appeal, revision, review or a fresh suit. A decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction remains binding until set aside through the remedies provided by law. Since a remedy of appeal was available against the final decree, the recall application could not be entertained under Section 151 to unsettle an already decided decree.

Conclusion: The recall of the final decree under Section 151 was impermissible and the challenge was accepted in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the participation of a judge who had earlier appeared in connected proceedings required recusal on the ground of bias.

Analysis: The governing test is whether a right-minded person would perceive a real likelihood of bias, because justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Although the issue had not been raised at the earliest opportunity, prior representation in connected proceedings could create an appearance problem and recusal would have been the safer course.

Conclusion: The Court expressed that recusal would have been more appropriate, though this did not alter the final result.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order recalling the final decree was set aside, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to recall or unsettle a final decree where the Code provides an effective alternative remedy; such powers are confined to situations where no other remedy exists and cannot override express procedural safeguards.

---