( 1 ) BOTH the Advocates submitted that the revision itself may be finally heard on merits. Accordingly arguments on the final merits of the revision are heard and the revision is disposed of finally.

( 2 ) THIS is a revision by judgment- debtor-2 against the order dated 4th august, 1986, passed by the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore' City, in Execution Case No. 76 of 1985 allowing I. A. No. 2.

( 3 ) THE respondent-decree holder smt. Sharfunnisa had filed a suit in O. S. No. 1909/83 against the present revision petitioner (defendant-2 in the suit) and another Amanulla Khan (defendant-1 in the said suit) for permanent injunction alleging that she was in possession of the property and that the defendants were interfering with her possession of the property. The said suit was decreed exparte.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the decree holder' defendants-1 and 2 on 14-10-1985 took forcible possession of the property out of Court. Thereafter she filed the present execution for delivery of the possession of the property i. e. for restitution of the property to her.

( 5 ) IT was opposed by the defendants in the executing court.

( 6 ) THE executing court relying on state of Bihar v Usha Devi and another (A I. R. 1956 Patna 455) pertaining to the equitable principles, ordered the delivery of the possession of the property to the decree holder. Hence the revision by defendant-2.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel Shri Angadi submitted that the executing court had already executed the decree and had put the decree holder in possession of the property. Thus, according to him, no relief could be granted to the revision petitioner in the present revision.

( 8 ) THE main important question is whether in the case of a decree for permanent injunction the court has got any jurisdiction to put a decree holder in possession of the property on the ground that the judgment debtors had forcibly thrown her out of the property out of court.

( 9 ) SECTION 144 C. P. C. would come into play if as a resultof the decree passed the party has taken possession of the property and if that decree has been subsequently varied or set aside or modified. The dispossession contemplated by Section 144 C. P. C. is dispossession by executing the process of the court. Section 144 C. P. C. does not contemplate a case where the party has taken the law into his own hands and has brought about dispossession. If the party has acted highhandedly out of court and has taken possession, the only remedy available to the party dispossessed is to file a suit for possession. The question of restitution does not arise in such cases.

( 10 ) ORDER21 Rule 32 C. P. C. clearly lays down as to how a decree for injunction can be executed. Order 21 Rule 32 c. P. C. says that where a decree for injunction is passed and where he had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. This is the only mode of execution of a decree for permanent injunction. Rule 32 does not contemplate the restitution at all. The remedy available to a party in such a case of forcible dispossession is by way of suit.

( 11 ) THIS Court in Sakamma v Ere- gowda 1974 (2) Karnataka Law Journal, 357) hss stated as : - "the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit forpermanent injunction on the ground that he was not in possession on the date of suit, does not amount to conclusively holding that the defendant was in possession on the date of suit. Section 144 or Section 151 cannot be invoked to give positive relief to the defendant, which relief he can secure in a suit. " similar is the principle laid down in k. Govinda Chettiar v A. N. Muniswami chettlar (A. I. R. 1937 Madras, 315) and banchhanidhi Das v Bhanu Sahuni and others (A. I. R. 1974 Orissa 148 ).

( 12 ) IN Sanampudu Krishna Reddy v pallam Reddy (A I. R. 1980 N. O. C. 99) (Andhra Pradesh), the Andhra Pradesh high Court has stated as