Summary
After dismissal of a deity’s injunction suit for failure to prove possession, the defendant sought restoration of possession and mesne profits under Section 144 CPC. No decree or interim order had put the plaintiff into possession or required the defendant to hand it over. The statutory basis for restitution was therefore absent. The Court restored dismissal of the restitution application without deciding any independent remedy the defendant might have.
Issues
- Whether dismissal of an injunction suit justified restitution when no court order had conferred or transferred possession.
Provisions considered
- Section 144(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Restitution must be consequential on variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of a decree or order; no court-ordered transfer of possession existed here. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- Section 144 authorizes consequential restoration to the position parties would have occupied but for the decree or order subsequently varied or reversed. It does not provide restitution merely because an injunction suit has failed. (¶¶ 9, 10, 12)
- The interim order did not direct the defendant to deliver possession, and no decree or order placed the plaintiff in possession. Accordingly the statutory conditions were not met, and the executing court correctly declined the application. Any remedy otherwise available to the defendant did not lie in this Section 144 proceeding. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and respondent’s restitution application before the executing court dismissed. No costs; pending applications disposed of.