Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 144 of CPC in restitution cases: Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir vs. Rajesh (2019) INSC 37

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 37
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a party seek restitution of property under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) if they were never dispossessed by a court order? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving a dispute over agricultural land. The court clarified that Section 144 of the CPC applies only when a party has been dispossessed due to a court order that is subsequently reversed. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. concurred with the decision.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a suit filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Sardarpur, Dist. Dhar (M.P.) by Ganeshi Lal, acting as the next friend of the deity at Bhawani Mata Mandir. The suit sought a permanent injunction to restrain Geetabai (since deceased) and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed possession through Dulichand, son of Shrichand. The defendants contested this claim, asserting that Geetabai was the rightful possessor of the land as the widow of Onkarlal, who was allegedly the priest of the temple.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit for a permanent injunction on 11 April 1981, stating that the plaintiff had not proven their possession of the disputed land. The first appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 23 March 1982, and the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 5 May 1984. Following the dismissal of the second appeal, Geetabai filed an application under Section 144 of the CPC for the restoration of possession and mesne profits. The executing court dismissed this application on 24 August 1998. However, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the executing court. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed in limine on 3 December 2004, stating that no substantial question of law arose.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court focused on Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the application for restitution. Section 144(1) states:

“144. Application for restitution – (1) Where and in so far as a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose, the Court which passed the decree or order shall, on the application of any party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for such decree or order or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified and, for this purpose, the Court may make any orders, including orders for the refund of costs and for the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits, which are properly consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree or order…….”

The Court noted that Section 144 applies when a decree or order is varied, reversed, set aside, or modified. In such cases, the court that passed the original decree or order can order restitution to restore the parties to the position they would have been in if the decree or order had not been made. This section is designed to ensure that no party is unjustly enriched or disadvantaged due to a court order that is later overturned.

Arguments

The appellant argued that Section 144 of the CPC was not applicable in this case because:

• ✓ The restitution sought must be in respect of a decree or order that has been varied or reversed.
• ✓ The party applying for restitution must be entitled to the benefit of restitution.
• ✓ The relief claimed must be consequential to the reversal or variation of the decree or order.

The appellant contended that none of these conditions were met as the plaintiff was never placed in possession of the land by a court order that was subsequently reversed. They also argued that even if the plaintiff had taken possession during the pendency of the suit, Section 144 would not apply. Additionally, they highlighted that the Trial Court did not make a finding on whether the respondent was in possession of the disputed land.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the appellant had taken possession of the land after an interim injunction was passed. They contended that once the suit for injunction was dismissed, the defendant was entitled to apply for restitution under Section 144 of the CPC.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in emphasizing the strict interpretation of Section 144, arguing that it only applies when possession was explicitly granted by a court order that was later reversed, and not merely due to actions taken during the pendency of a suit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the provisions of Section 144 of the CPC were attracted in the present case, where the plaintiff was not placed in possession by a court order that was later reversed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in the judgment.

Judgment

The court found that Section 144 of the CPC was not applicable in this case. The interim order of the Trial Court did not require the defendant to hand over possession to the plaintiff. There was no decree or order by which the appellant was given possession, nor was there any order mandating the respondent to hand over possession. Therefore, the conditions for the application of Section 144 were not met.

The Supreme Court stated that the remedy of the first respondent, if any, did not lie in an application for restitution under Section 144 of the CPC. The executing court was correct in declining to entertain the application. The orders of the first appellate court and the High Court were deemed unsustainable.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the application filed by the respondent before the executing court. The Court held that “In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 144, CPC were not attracted there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order as contemplated by Section 144.”

The Court further clarified that, “The remedy of the first respondent, if any, did not lie in an application for restitution before the executing court under Section 144, CPC.” and that “The executing court was justified in declining to entertain the application under Section 144, CPC.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a strict and literal interpretation of Section 144 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the provision is explicitly triggered when a decree or order is varied or reversed. The absence of any such decree or order that mandated the transfer of possession to the plaintiff was the key factor in the Court’s reasoning. The Court’s focus was on the procedural aspect of restitution under Section 144 rather than the factual aspect of who was in possession of the land.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Section 144 of the CPC applies only when a party has been dispossessed due to a court order that is subsequently reversed.
• ✓ If possession was taken outside the ambit of a court order, restitution under Section 144 is not the appropriate remedy.
• ✓ The executing court cannot entertain an application under Section 144 if the conditions for its application are not met.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the application filed by the respondent before the executing court shall stand dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 144 of the CPC is to be strictly interpreted and applies only when a party is dispossessed due to a court order that is subsequently reversed. This clarifies the scope of Section 144 and prevents its misuse in situations where possession was not obtained through a court order. This judgment reinforces the procedural framework of restitution under Section 144 of the CPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir vs. Rajesh clarifies that Section 144 of the CPC is not a general remedy for restitution of possession. It is specifically applicable when a party has been dispossessed due to a court order that is later overturned. The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 144 and ensures that it is not misused in situations where possession was not obtained through a court order.