IMPORTANT POINT
Section 144 applies to a situation where a decree or an order is varied or reversed in appeal, revision or any other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose. In that situation, the Court which has passed the decree may cause restitution to be made, on an application of any party entitled, so as to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for the decree or order or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified. The court is empowered to pass orders which are consequential in nature to the decree or order being varied or reversed.

JUDGMENT

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Bench at Indore. A suit [Suit No. 60/A/77] was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Sardarpur, Dist. Dhar (M.P.) by one Ganeshi Lal claiming as the next friend of the diety situated at Bhawani Mata Mandir, Gram Dasai, Tehsil Sardarpur. The suit was for a permanent injunction against Geetabai (since deceased) and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the agricultural land in dispute.

3. The issues which were framed in the suit for the conclusion were as follows:

“Sl. No.	ISSUES	CONCLUSION
1.	Whether on land bearing No Survey No. 1630, 1631 & 1632 belonging to the ownership Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir situated in village Dasai possession of plaintiff is continuously coming through Dulichand son of Shrichand?
2(a)	Whether plaintiff is Pujari of Bhawani Mata Mandir ?
2(b)	If plaintiff is Pujari, then in what capacity ?	Judgments not necessary
3.	Whether on 14.6.77 defendants made an attempt to take possession illegally on suit land and destroyed the crop.	No
4.	Whether on Onkarlal was the husband of defendant No. 1 i.e. Pujari of Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir?	Judgment not necessary
5.	Whether after Onkarlal suit land remained in possession of defendant no. 1 in the capacity of Pujari ?	Judgment not necessary
6.	Relief and cost ?	Suit dismissed with cost”

4. The suit was dismissed by the Trial court on 11 April 1981 on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove possession over the land in dispute. Both the first appeal as well as the second appeal were dismissed on 23 March 1982 by the District Judge and on 5 May 1984 by the High Court.

5. After the disposal of the second appeal, Geetabai filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for the restoration of possession of the disputed land and for awarding mesne profits, before the Judge, Civil Court, Class I, Sardarpur[M.J.C. No. 21 of 1986].

6. The application was dismissed on 24 August 1998 by the executing court. The appeal filed before the Additional District Judge by the first respondent was allowed and the case was remanded back to the executing court. The appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court which was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 3 December 2004 on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.

7. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, the appellant submits that the provisions of Section 144 of the CPC were not attracted. The Additional District Judge was, it was urged, not justified in remanding the proceedings back to the executing court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the plaintiff was not placed in possession by the court under any decree or order which was ultimately reversed on the dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction. In the circumstances, Section 144 was not attracted. Learned counsel submitted that in order to attract the application of Section 144, three conditions must be satisfied:

(i) Restitution sought must be in respect of a decree or order which has been varied or reversed;

(ii) The party applying must be entitled to the benefit of restitution;

(iii) The relief which is claimed must be consequential to the reversal or variation of the decree or order.

8. In the instant case, it has been urged that none of these conditions were satisfied. Moreover, even if it were to be assumed that the plaintiff had taken possession of the disputed land during the pendency of the suit, it was urged that an application under Section 144 would not lie. Moreover, it was urged that the Trial court did not decide the q