MURTI BHAWANI MATA MANDIR REP. THROUGH PUJARI GANESHI LAL (D) THROUGH LR. KAILASH versus RAMESH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 21-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
MURTI BHAWANI MATA MANDIR REP. THROUGH
PUJARI GANESHI LAL (D) THROUGH LR. KAILASH
v.
RAMESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 880 of 2019)
JANUARY 21, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.144 – When not attracted
– Suit for permanent injunction instituted by one ‘GL’ for restraining
respondent nos.1, 2 and one ‘G’ from interfering with the possession
of the plaintiff over the land in dispute – Suit dismissed by the trial
court – Appeals thereagainst were dismissed – ‘G’ filed application
u/s.144, CPC inter alia for restoration of possession of the disputed
land – Application dismissed by the executing court – Appeal filed
by respondent no.1 – Case remanded back to the executing court –
Second appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court, which
was dismissed – Plea of the appellant that the plaintiff was not
placed in possession by the court under any decree or order which
was ultimately reversed on the dismissal of the suit for permanent
injunction and hence, s.144 was not attracted – Held: s.144 applies
to a situation where a decree or an order is varied or reversed in
appeal, revision or any other proceeding or is set aside or modified
in any suit instituted for the purpose – In the present case, the interim
order of the trial court did not require the defendant to hand over
the possession to the plaintiff – There was no decree or order of the
trial court by virtue of which the appellant was given possession of
the property, nor did any decree or order mandate that the respondent
hand over possession to the appellant – In these circumstances, the
provisions of s.144 were not attracted there being no variation or
reversal of a decree or order, as contemplated by s.144 – Executing
Court was justified in declining to entertain the application
u/s.144 – Judgment of the High Court set aside.
Suit for permanent injunction was instituted by one ‘GL’,
claiming as next best friend of the deity situated at Bhawani Mata
Mandir, against the respondent nos.1, 2 and one ‘G’. The suit
was dismissed by the trial court. Appeals filed thereagainst were
 [2019] 2 S.C.R. 529
   529
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
dismissed. ‘G’ filed application u/s.144, CPC inter alia for
restoration of possession of the disputed land. The application
was dismissed by the executing court. Respondent no.1 filed
appeal, which was allowed and the case was remanded back to
the executing court. The appellant filed second appeal before
the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
applies to a situation where a decree or an order is varied or
reversed in appeal, revision or any other proceeding or is set
aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose. In that
situation, the Court which has passed the decree may cause
restitution to be made, on an application of any party entitled, so
as to place the parties in the position which they would have
occupied but for the decree or order or such part thereof as has
been varied, reversed, set aside or modified. The court is
empowered to pass orders which are consequential in nature to
the decree or order being varied or reversed. In the present
case, the interim order of the Trial court did not require the
defendant to hand over the possession to the plaintiff. There was
no decree or order of the Trial court by virtue of which the
appellant was given possession of the property, nor did any decree
or order mandate that the respondent hand over possession to
the appellant. [Paras 10, 11] [533-F-H; 534-A]
1.2  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 executing
court was justified in declining to entertain the application under
Section 144, CPC.  The order of the first appellate court which
was affirmed by the High Court was unsustainable. The judgment
of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 12, 13] [534-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 880 of
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2004 of the High Court
of M. P., Bench at Indore in SA No. 407 of 2002.
Alok Bhachawat, K. V. Bharathi Upadhayay, Ms. Pratibha Jain,
Advs. for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
Harshvardhan Jha, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Ms. Mayuri
Shukla, Abhishek Chaudhary, Advs. for the Re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.