1. Heard Sri Shashank Shekher Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

2. The defect stands removed. Let revision be registered with regular number. As requested by learned counsel for the revisionist, I proceed to hear the revision for admission today itself.

3. The Executing Court passed order dated 30.10.2004 in Execution Case No.80 of 2003 consigning the execution observing that decree stood satisfied. An application was moved under Section 151 C.P.C. stating that decree is not satisfied and still Rs. 1,66,155.99 and interest of Rs. 68.28 should be allowed, which has been rejected by the Court below by means of impugned order dated 05.07.2010.

4. On repeated query that order passed by Executing Court finalising execution whether revisable or not, he could not dispute the same but still submit that if there is calculation error, the same could be seen in the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. and for that purpose relied on Single Judge Judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Khoobchand Jain and Anr. v. Kashi Prasad & Ors., AIR 1986 Madhya Pradesh 66.

5. However, I find no force in the submission.

6. Section 151 C.P.C. confers inherent power upon the Court to make such orders, as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court. However, if in a matter, specific remedy is available in the Code, the Court shall not invoke jurisdiction under Section 151. In State of U.P. & Ors. v. Roshan Singh (Dead) by L Rs. and Ors., 2008(2) SCC 488, the Court clearly said :

"If there are specific provisions of the CPC dealing with the particular topic and they expressly or necessary implication exhaust the scope of the powers of the Court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to a matter, the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the CPC. The inherent powers of the Court are not to be used for the benefit of a litigant who has remedy under the CPC. Similar is the position vis-a-vis other statutes. The object of Section 151 CPC is to supplement and not to replace the remedies provided for in the CPC. Section 151 CPC will not be available when there is alternative remedy and same is accepted to be a well-settled ratio of law.

7. Repeating the similar expression of law, the Court in Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree, 2008 (9) SCC 648 [LQ/SC/2008/1987 ;] ">2008 (9) SCC 648 [LQ/SC/2008/1987 ;] [LQ/SC/2008/1987 ;] , said:

"It is settled law that inherent powers may be exercised ex debito justitiae in those cases, where there is no express provision in the Code. The said power cannot be exercised in contravention or in conflict of or ignoring express and specific provision of law."

8. A Full Bench of this Court in Mukand Lal v. Gaya Prasad and Ors., AIR 1935 All 599, said that inherent powers of the court, would not include a power of revision under Section 115 of the Code, even in cases to which that section is not applicable. It has been the consistent view that Court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151, where the applicant has his remedy provided elsewhere in the Code, and has neglected to avail of the same. [Chandra Bhan Singh v. Lallu Singh, (1947) ILR Allahabad 389; Nageswara Prasad v. Gudrimall, (1933) 55 All 548; Mt Sukra v. Ram Harakh, AIR 1951 All 195 [LQ/AllHC/1951/24 ;] ">1951 All 195 [LQ/AllHC/1951/24 ;] [LQ/AllHC/1951/24 ;] (FB)]

9. In Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala Kshemam Yunik Kuries Pvt. Ltd., Trichur, AIR 1988 Kerala 223, it is said that inherent powers cannot be invoked as a substitute for appeal, review or revision.

10. In the present case, if applicant was of the view that Execution Court has wrongly passed final order holding that decree has been satisfied though it is not against such final order of Execution Court, the remedy of revision was available but the same having not been availed, in my view, application under Section 151 C.P.C. was not entertainable and has rightly been rejected by the Court.

11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error justifying interference by this Court in the impugned order.

12. Dismissed.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.