Skip to main content

Section 144 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - Application for restitution..

 Section 144 CPC Description

(1) Where and in so far as a decree 1[or an Order] is 2[varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceedings 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 1[or Order] or 3[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 4[consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree or Order.]


5[Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-section (1) the expression "Court which passed the decree or Order" shall be deemed to include,-


(a) where the decree or Order has been varied or reversed in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the Court of first instance;


(b) where the decree or Order has been set aside by a separate suit, the


Court of first instance which passed such decree or Order;


(c) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute, it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree or Order was passed were instituted at the time of making the application for restitution under this section, would have jurisdiction to try such suit.]


(2) No suit shall be instituted for the pr-pose of obtaining any restitution or other relief which could be obtained by application under sub-section (1).


STATE AMENDMENT


Uttar Pradesh-Substitute the following for sub-section (1) of section 144 of the Code:


"(1) Where and in so far as a decree or an Order is varied or reversed in appeal, revision or otherwise, the Court of first instance 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 for as may be, place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for such decree or Order or such part there of as has been varied or reversed; and for this purpose, the Court may make any Orders, including Orders for the refused of costs and for the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits, which are properly consequential on such variation or reversal".


[Vide U.P. Act No. 24 of 1954 sec. 2 and Sch., Item 5, entry 7 (w.e.f. 30-11-1954).]


COMMENTS


(i) The Court which is competent to entertain the application for restitution is the Court of first instance; Neelathupara Kummi Seethi Koya Phangal (dead) by LRs. v. Montharapalla Padippua Attakoya, AIR 1994 SC 1591.


(ii) Provisions of section 144 can be invoked only in pending cases; Chhota Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1993 P&H 79: 1993(2) Land LR 77.


(iii) Whenever an ex parte Order/decree for possession/eviction is set aside, the party who was dispossessed/evicted in pursuance of such an ex parte decree or Order, is entitled to restitution forthwith inspite of the fact that ultimately on merits, he may lose the cause and may have to yield back possession; Chanda Sab v. Jamshed Khan, AIR 1993 Kant 338: 1993(2) Kant LJ 638: ILR (Kant) (1993) 2197.


(iv) Where the possession has been taken forcibly by a landlord/defendant during the pendency of the proceedings, i.e., when the application of temporary injunction restraining landlord/defendant from interfering with possession is dismissed by the trial Court and before filing the appeal, section 144 may not strictly apply; Cheni Chenchaiah v. Shaikh Ali Saheb, AIR 1993 AP 292: 1993(2) Andh LT 517: 1993(2) Cur CC 364.


(v) Settlement in Bhopal Gas Disaster case?Settlement set aside?Union Carbide Corporation entitled to restitution of entire amount deposited with interest; Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248.


(vi) Where property was sold in auction in execution of decree which was subsequently set aside in appeal, auction-purchaser being already aware of pending appeal against decree cannot resist restitution; Chinnamal v. P. Arumugham, AIR 1990 SC 1828.


1. Ins. By Act 66 of 1956, sec. 13 (w.e.f. 1-1-1957).


2. Subs. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 48, for "varied or reversed, the Court of first Instance" (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


3. Subs. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 48, for "such part thereof as has been varied or reversed" (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


4. Subs. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 48, for "consequential on such variation or reversal" (w.e.f. 1-2-1997).


5. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 48 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more