### Inherent Power Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked to Revive Concluded Execution Proceedings After Volitional Non-Withdrawal of Deposited Decretal Amounts.

Following an Arbitral Award (1998) made a Rule of Court in 2005, the Judgment Debtor (JD) deposited ₹2,89,90,273/- before the High Court in 2013 pursuant to a Supreme Court order.

Execution Petition 82/2012 was disposed of on 13.05.2022, after the Court permitted the Decree Holder (DH) to withdraw the deposited amount subject to a corporate undertaking.

The DH chose not to withdraw the funds and subsequently filed a miscellaneous application under Section 151 of the CPC in 2025 seeking revival of the execution petition, claiming the deposit was only part satisfaction and that the currency conversion rate for the USD award should be recalculated based on the exchange rate as of 06.08.2024.

1. Whether an execution petition disposed of upon the deposit of decretal funds can be revived under Section 151 of the CPC due to the Decree Holder's choice not to withdraw those funds.

2. Whether the relevant date for foreign currency conversion is the date of "finality" of the award or the date of deposit when the funds were made available to the Decree Holder.

The Court applied Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, emphasizing that inherent powers cannot be used to reopen settled matters or circumvent statutory remedies.

The Court relied on Order XXI Rule 1 of the CPC, which stipulates that interest ceases to run once money is deposited into court and notice is provided.

Precedent from DLF Ltd. v. Koncar Generators & Motors Ltd. (2025) was applied to establish that while a foreign award's conversion rate is generally fixed at the date of enforceability, any amount deposited during the pendency of proceedings must be converted as of the date of the deposit.

The court further cited Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of UP (2024) regarding the principle of functus officio, noting that post-disposal applications are only maintainable for clerical errors or rare executory impossibility.

The Court reasoned that the JD’s obligation was discharged to the extent of the deposit made in 2013, as the funds were placed beyond the JD's control and made available to the DH.

The Court rejected the DH's attempt to use Section 151 to revive the petition, noting that the DH’s failure to withdraw the money—despite the 13.05.2022 order granting liberty to do so—constituted a "deemed refusal" of payment.

Regarding currency conversion, the Court distinguished DLF Ltd., clarifying that the conversion rate is frozen at the date of deposit for any funds actually paid into court; the DH cannot benefit from a fluctuating exchange rate by voluntarily staying its own hand.

Consequently, the Court found it was functus officio, as there were no clerical errors or subsequent developments rendering the 2022 order unimplementable.

The Court held that the currency conversion must be reckoned as of the date of deposit in 2013.

Finding the application to be an abuse of process, the Court imposed costs of ₹1,00,00,000/- on the Decree Holder to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.