Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Ajaib Singh & Ors vs Smt. Tulsi Devi on 2 August, 2000
In Ajaib Singh v. Tulsi Devi, (2000) 6 SCC 566 : (AIR 2000 SC 2493), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 observed that the person making the averments as per convenience without regard for truth would be precluded from getting equitable relief. In Union Carbide Corporation. v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 144, CPC embodying the doctrine of restitution does not confer any new substantive right to the party not already obtaining under the general law.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 13 October, 2003
In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M. P., 2003 (7) Supreme 539 : (AIR 2003 SC 4482) it was held that to apply Section 144, CPC the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the Court to pass an order held at the end as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining an advantage which it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the Court and the act of such party.
Ganesh Parshad vs Adi Hindu Social Service League ... on 23 August, 1974
It has been specifically pleaded that since the ex-parte decree has already been set aside by the High Court, the defendant is entitled to the restoration. It was next submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the restoration is an equitable relief and since the defendant has not come with clean hands, the impugned order is liable to be set aside; that the defendant could not establish what loss has been sustained by him because of the dispossession, hence he was not entitled to any relief under Section 144, CPC that some of the articles of the temple had already been stolen, hence the same position as in existence on the date of delivery of the possession to the plaintiff on 21-12-1995 cannot be restored; that the prayer of the respondent to restore the possession as existed on 31-5-1995 was contrary to Section 144, CPC and none of all the three conditions were satisfied, hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It was also contended that the defendant had been living in Kota for the last 28 years and thus he never performed Pooja in this temple; that it was not proved that the plaintiff has derived any advantage out of this ex-parte decree and thus the said order should be set aside. He placed reliance upon Ganesh Parshad v. Adi Hindu Social Service League, AIR 1975 AP 310 wherein it was held that to apply Section 144, CPC three conditions are necessary to be satisfied. They are (i) the restitution sought must be in respect of a decree or order which had been varied or reversed; (ii) the party applying for restitution must be entitled to the benefit under a reversing decree or order and (iii) the relief claimed must be properly consequential on the reversal or variation of the decree or order. If these conditions are satisfied, it given no choice or discretion to the Court and the only course it has to follow is to order restitution to the party which had suffered loss on account of the erroneous decree or order.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Binayak Swain vs Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi And Another on 10 December, 1965
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that since the ex-parte decree was set aside by this Court and the case was remanded for trial, the impugned order was rightly passed under Section 144, CPC. He placed reliance upon Binayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi, AIR 1966 SC 948 wherein it was held that the principle of the doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a decree, the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who received the benefit of the erroneous decree to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost. This obligation arises automatically on the reversal on modification of the decree and necessarily carries with it the right to restitution of all that has been done under the erroneous decree and the Court in making the restitution is bound to restore the parties, so far as they can be restored, to the same position they were in at the time when the Court by its erroneous action had displaced them from. .
Puni Devi Sahu And Anr. vs Jagannath Mohapatra on 17 December, 1993
While taking similar view in Puni Devi Sahu v. Jagannath Mohapatra, AIR 1994 Orissa 240, it was held by Orissa High Court that the doctrine of the restitution is based on equitable principle and consequently cannot be applied in a case where it conflicts with another rule of equity.
Karnam Chand vs Smt. Kamlesh Kumari And Anr. on 7 April, 1972
In Karnam Chand v. Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, AIR 1973 MP 6, it was held that the Court may refuse restitution where it does not appear to be in consonance with the real and substantial justice of the case.
Chellamma Ambika vs K.M. Kanikari on 30 October, 2002
In Chellamma Ambika v. K. M. Kanikari, 2003 (1) WLC (SC) 245 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case there is concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court that original auction purchaser or plaintiff-appellant had ever come in possession of disputed land since they had been in possession they must have resisted execution when sought to be dispossessed, it is not open for the plaintiff to bring a suit for recovery of possession.
1