Application for restitution

2023 YLR 494 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 144Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114Application for restitutionEstoppelScope

Petitioners assailed concurrent orders of courts below whereby the respondent's application under S. 144, C.P.C., was allowed

Validity

Petitioners had got share of their mother from the legacy of their maternal grandfather on the strength of judgments/decree of courts below which were set aside by the Chief Court on a technical ground

Petitioners were entitled to retain the suit property till disposal of their suit

Respondent had earlier filed an application for restitution/possession under S.47, C.P.C., which was unconditionally withdrawn, hence, he was estopped by his conduct and admission to file fresh petition for restitution/possession of suit land

Revision petition was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

2020 CLC 1813 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 144Application for restitutionActus curiae neminem gravabitScope

Doctrine of restitution is based upon cardinal maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man)

Maxim: contemplates a case where property was received through order of the Court, which was later on reversed or varied; in such situation, it becomes wrongful possession hence, imperative upon the beneficiary of said erroneous order/decree to make restitution to the other party what he had lost, otherwise Court is armed with the powers to place the applicant in the position in which he would have been, if the order had not been made, else it would be inequitable and unjust

Concept of restitution is as old as the law itself

Section 144, C.P.C., provides procedure, whereas the power to order restitution is inherent in Court and is sparingly exercised whenever justice demands

Expression 'the act of the Court' does not mean merely the act of primary Court or of any intermediate Court of appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole from the lowest Court, which entertains jurisdiction over the matter, upto the highest Court which finally disposes of the case

Court reversing the order/ decree need not specifically direct restitution of the property, rather such right arises automatically, which is enforceable before the Trial Court

Even any subsequent event cannot defeat the right of restitution, rather it is to be enforced against the person, who was benefited under such order / decree as well as his transferee or assignee, even if such person was not a party to the proceedings in which such order or decree was reversed.

2020 CLC 1813 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 144Suit for recovery of possessionApplication for restitutionScope

Petitioners assailed order passed by courts below whereby they were directed to restore the possession of suit property to the respondents

Validity

Petitioners, in satisfaction of ex parte judgment and decree, had taken over possession of the property from respondents but subsequently the said decree was set aside by High Court

Court was bound to perform its statutory duty to cause restitution, as such the concurrent orders of the lower fora putting the parties at the place prior to ex parte decree were perfectly passed

Constitutional petition was dismissed with costs.

2013 PLD 264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 144Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12Suit for specific performance to sell immovable property, dismissal ofApplication for restitutionScope

Suit of plaintiff was dismissed, whereafter during pendency of appeal filed by plaintiff, one of the defendants registered a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, after which the appeal by the plaintiff was withdrawn

Subsequently the other defendants filed application under S.144 of the C.P.C. contending that the sale-deed was liable to be set aside, which application was allowed by Appellate Court

Contention of the plaintiff was that Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain application under S.144, C.P.C. for restitution

Validity

Provisions of S.144, C.P.C. embodied the principle that nobody shall be prejudiced by the act of the court meaning thereby that it was the paramount duty of the court to take care that the act of the court did not injure the parties and when such injury was found by the court on account of subsequent event of variation or reversal of decree, then it was the foremost duty of the court to undo the wrong and reinstate the wronged party to the position it was entitled to

In the present case, there was no decree passed by the Trial Court and the suit had been dismissed in toto, and sale deed was registered during pendency of appeal and therefore application filed under S.144, C.P.C. was not maintainable since the sale-deed was registered between the parties and had not been registered with the aid of the court

Impugned order being without jurisdiction was set aside

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2013 PLD 264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 144Application for restitution

Scope.

2013 CLC 1073 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 144 & 151Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S.39Application for restitutionReversal of decreeRestoration of possessionScope

Suit for cancellation for agreement to sell immovable property was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and possession was accordingly handed over to him

Subsequently appeal of defendant thereagaisnt was allowed, and application of the defendant under S.144, C.P.C. was allowed; and possession was restored to the defendant

Validity

Act of the court should not injure rights of any person and S.144 of C.P.C. was based on the same principle

Defendant had lost possession of the disputed property in execution of ex parte decree which was set aside by High Court on appeal, therefore, defendant was entitled to restoration of the possession of the same in accordance with law and parties were to be restored to the same position they were in prior to the decree

Any benefit received by a decree holder under a decree which had been reversed was refundable to the party entitled to such benefit by restoration

Section 144, C.P.C. was applicable irrespective of fact whether restoration had or had not been directed in the Appellate Court's decree

Restoration was a consequential relief on account of reversal of decree for the safe administration of justice

No illegality therefore existed in the impugned order

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.