Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
L. Guran Ditta vs T.R. Ditta on 6 December, 1934
In L. Guran Ditta v. T.R. Ditta, AIR 1935 PC 12 the Privy Council has pointed out that the duty of the Court when awarding restitution under S. 144 of the Code is imperative, and that it shall place the applicant in the position in which he would have been the order had not been made. Section 144 has been enacted with a view to shorten litigation and afford speedy relief. The section does not say that the variation or reversal must be by a superior court; all that is required for the purposes of section 144 is, that the decree or order must have been varied or reversed. There is no justification for limiting the scope of that section by reading into it words of limitation which are not there.
Jagendra Nath Singh vs Hira Sahu And Ors. on 8 May, 1947
"The most common method is to file an appeal or, where the decree is not appealable, a revision in a superior court which may either 'affirmed', 'varied', or 'reversed'. A Court may also review its own decree and in that case it sets aside its previous decree. It will be noticed that there is no question then of a superior and an inferior court as the Court had itself passed the decree. If a decree has been obtained by fraud or has been obtained against a person who was not properly represented or has been passed by a Court that had no jurisdiction, it may be possible to have it varied or reversed by another Court. There seems to be no reason why restitution under S. 144 should be confined only to the case where the decree has been 'varied' or 'reversed' in appeal or revision and has not been 'varied' or 'reversed' by any court by any of the other modes."
Vindhyachal Tewari vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 6 March, 1956
In a later decision reported in Vindhyachal v. Board of Revenue, , a Division Bench of that High Court has held that S. 144, C.P.C., applies to all cases in which a decree or order is varied or reversed and when that is the case, any party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise is entitled to be placed in the position which he would have occupied but for such decree or order which has been varied or reversed. The learned Judges have, in that context, further observed that a decree or order may be varied or reversed in appeal or in revision, or in some other proceedings, or in a separate suit, or even by subsequent legislation.
Alapati Ankamma vs Pavuluri Basava Punnayya on 27 March, 1945
In Ankamma v. Punnayya, AIR 1945 Mad 360 Patanjali Sastri J. (as he then was), has taken the view that section 144 would be applicable provided the decree is varied or reversed, however the variation or reversal has been effected and that it is not necessary that the variance or reversal must be in appeal.
Choudhary Hariram And Ors. vs Pooransingh on 7 December, 1959
The above decision of the Allahabad High Court has been followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case reported in Hariram v. Pooransingh, .
1