Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a long-standing property dispute concerning temples and shops in Jaipur. The original plaintiff, Bansidhar Sharma (since deceased, represented by his legal representative), filed a suit in 1961 for possession, rendition of accounts, and permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan and others. The trial court dismissed the suit on 26 November 1977. The plaintiff appealed to the Rajasthan High Court (S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 86/1979). During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court passed interim orders on 11 January 1978, 10 October 1996, and 22 November 1996, directing that the plaintiff not be dispossessed and later restoring possession of the temple to the plaintiff. The first appeal was ultimately dismissed on 20 April 2018, with the High Court directing the plaintiff to hand over possession within two months and imposing costs. The plaintiff challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 13439 of 2018, which was dismissed on 17 May 2018. Thereafter, the respondents (State) sought possession, but the plaintiff did not comply. The respondents filed an application under Section 151 read with Section 144 CPC before the High Court, which allowed the application on 21 August 2019, directing the State to take possession with police aid if necessary. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order restitution under Section 144 CPC or otherwise. The appellant argued that the execution application should have been filed before the trial court (court of first instance), not the High Court. The respondents contended that Section 144 CPC was not attracted because there was no variation or reversal of a decree; possession was obtained under an interim order, and the High Court had inherent power to restore status quo. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 144 CPC and held that it applies only when a decree or order is varied or reversed. Since the suit was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed, there was no variation or reversal of any decree. The possession was handed over under an interim order, not a decree. Therefore, Section 144 CPC was not strictly applicable. However, the Court held that the High Court had inherent power to pass consequential orders to restore the position as it existed before the interim order was passed. The High Court's order directing restitution was within its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Restitution - Section 144 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Scope - Section 144 CPC applies only when a decree or order is varied or reversed in appeal, revision or other proceeding - In the present case, possession was handed over under an interim order passed by the High Court pending first appeal, not under a decree - Since the suit was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed, there was no variation or reversal of a decree - Hence, Section 144 CPC was not attracted (Paras 14-16). B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Power - Restitution - Even if Section 144 CPC is not strictly applicable, the court has inherent power to restore status quo ante when possession was obtained under an interim order that is later vacated or the main matter is dismissed - The High Court correctly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to direct restoration of possession (Paras 17-18). C) Civil Procedure - Execution - Court of First Instance - Section 144 CPC - The application for restitution under Section 144 CPC lies to the court of first instance - However, in this case, since the interim order was passed by the High Court, the High Court itself was the appropriate forum to pass consequential orders for restitution (Paras 10, 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order restitution of possession under Section 144 CPC or otherwise when the possession was obtained under an interim order pending appeal, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Section 144 CPC was not strictly applicable, but the High Court had inherent power to restore the position as it existed before the interim order was passed. The order dated 21 August 2019 directing the State to take possession was upheld.
Law Points
- Restitution
- Section 144 CPC
- Interim order
- Inherent power
- Court of first instance
- Status quo ante
