MANG1YA Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision arises under the following circumstances Mangia, the applicant filed an application under sec. 7 of the R. P. T. O. against Gulab Singh, the apposite party lor reinstatement on the land from which he was alleged to have been forcibly dispossessed. The trial court dismissed the application but in revision the Board 01 Revenue allowed reinstatement of the applicant on land in question. The opposite party filed a writ petition against the decision of the Board of Revenue before the High Court of Rajasthan. By their decision dated 24. 7. 56 the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature Rajasthan allowed the writ petition and the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 18. 7. 57, whereby the applicant was reinstated on the land in dispute, was set aside The opposite party then filed an application before the S. D. O. under sec. 144 C. P. C. on 27. 9. 56 for restitution on the land from which he was dispossessed under orders of the Board of Revenue referred to above. THIS application was allowed by the S. D. O. on 15. 10. 56, and an order of restitution was given in favour of the opposite party. The applicant then went in appeal against this order before the Additional Commissioner who after examining the provision of law on the subject also agreed with the learned S. D. O. and confirmed the order given by him. It is against this decision of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 13. 2. 57 that this revision has been filed before us.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that sec. 144 C. P. C does not apply to the case as the decision in the case, given by the Board of Revenue which was subsequently vacated by the High Court did not amount to a decree but was an order to which this section does not apply. This point was raised before the lower appellate court also and it rightly pointed out that the jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be exercised whenever the justice of the case demanded and such powers will be exercised where an application is not strictly within sec. 144 C. P. C. In holding this view the learned court relied on 1955 N. U. C. (Cal ) page 5598, 1948 (All.) 252, 1935 (Mad.) 783, 1944 (Bom.) 269, 1940 (Lah.) 59 and 1935 (Cal.) 90.