“actus curiae neminem gravabit”

which means ‘the act of court shall

harm no one’.

RULES OF
RESTITUTION
BY :
ANOUSHKA MISHRA
BA.LLB(H)8TH SEM
REG NO:1841802021
 Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with
the provisions of restitution. Section 144 of the Code does
not confer any new substantive right. It merely regulates the
power of the court in that behalf.
 The expression ‘restitution’ has not been defined in the code
anywhere. But the term has a direct mention under Section
144 of the code. It is the restoration of something lost or
stolen to its rightful owner. On the other way, restitution
means restoring to a party the benefit which the other party
has received under a decree subsequently held to be wrong.
DOCTRINE OF RESTITUTION
Doctrine of restitution means, on the reversal of a decree,
the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who
received an unjust benefit of the erroneous decree to make
restitution to the other for what he has lost as far as they
can be restored.
 Section 144 does not confer any new substantive right. But
it merely regulates the power of the court in that behalf. It
is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a person is
harmed by a mistake of the court he should be restored to
the position he would have occupied but for that mistake.
 The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every
court and can be exercised whenever justice of the case
demands.
Who may apply for restitution?
For apply under section a person must satisfy two
conditions:
1. He must be a party to the decree or order varied and
reversed.
2. He must have become entitled to any benefit by way of
restitution or otherwise under the reversing decree or
order. Thus, a trespasser cannot get restitution.

Who may grant restitution?

As per the explanation, to Sec. 144 (1) an application for
restitution lies to the court which has passed the decree or
made the order.
Section 144 is not exhaustive and, therefore, even if the case does not fall within
the strict term of Section 144 of the Code, it is always at the discretion of the Court
to grant relief of restitution. Further Since the object of the doctrine is to shorten
litigation and to afford speedy relief to the party adversely affected, and merely
lays down a procedure, the provision should be construed liberally. This has clearly
been laid down in number of Supreme Court’s cases like Kavita Trehan v.
Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd ,Gangadhar v.Raghubar Dayal

In Kavita Trehan’s case the court para 16 says that “the Law of Restitution
encompasses all claims founded upon the principle of unjust enrichment” be it in
equity or under any law. One more widening provision is Section 151 of the CPC,
under which the courts have inherent power to order restitution even when the
section 144 cannot be applied.

Extending the scope and applicability of the section 144, the Allahabad High Court
in Jogendra Nath Singh v. Hira Shahu held that a case for restitution would fall
within the purview of section 144, even when the decree is set aside in a separate
suit, or where the court itself sets aside its own ex parte decree .
Lets understand the application of Sec 144 cpc
 CASE LAWS
 Jamaluddin v. Mirza Quader Baig: It was held that for restoration
of possession to the tenant, who was dispossessed by the landlord
from the suit premises forcibly in violation of the orders of interim
injunction, there is no necessity of filing a petition under Section
144 of CPC. The Court can restore possession in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC. Similarly

 Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun: It was held that when the plaintiff
in a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of tenancy was
forcibly dispossessed in violation of the interim injunction, the civil
Court can invoke its inherent power to grant temporary mandatory
injunction by directing the police to restore possession. The inherent
jurisdiction to pass an order in restitution can be exercised by a
persona designate entrusted with functions of a court as for example
by a district munsiff to whom the decree is transferred for execution