Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners the defendants in the T.S. No. 495 of 1996. Also heard Mr. Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (plaintiffs). This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25.7.2005 (Annexure-4) in Misc. Appeal No. 18/2002, whereby the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), No. 2, Guwahati reversed the restitution order by observing that the defendants' case does not come within the purview of Section 144 of the C.P.C. The Court held that dispossession of the defendants' is not attributable to the status quo order passed by the Court on 10.10.1996 in the Misc. (J) Case No. 353 of 1996.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the T.S. No. 495 of 1996 against the predecessors of the defendants, seeking declaration and permanent injunction for the suit land measuring 2 katha covered by Dag No. 9026 (old), 1704 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 849 (new) of village Pub-Sarania Hill side under the Ulubari Mouza, Guwahati in Kamrup District. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants tried to trespass into the suit land on 5.10.1996, when the plaintiff No. 2 had gone to Mangaldoi and thereafter the plaintiff was threatened to vacate the land. Moreover on 9.10.1996, the defendants attempted to grab the suit land by trying to gather construction materials. The plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the suit land on the basis of gift given by their maternal uncle (pro-forma defendants' father).

3. An injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. was also filed by the plaintiffs and in the resultant Misc. (J) Case No. 353 of 1996, the Court on 10.10.1996 issued notice to the defendants making it returnable on 13.11.1996 and in the meantime, directed the defendants to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land.

4. Alleging forcible dispossession by the defendants on 11.10.1996 from the suit land and inaction of the police despite the registration of the Chandmari PS. Case No. 413/1996, the defendants belatedly applied for restitution under Section 144 of the C.P.C. and this application was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 272 of 1999. But it may be noted herein that recourse to Section 144 was made about 2 1/2 years later only on 24.4.1999 and that too, long after the T.S. No. 495 of 1996 was dismissed for default on 4.7.1997.

5. The respondents/plaintiffs in their objection contended that the defendants were not dispossessed through any Court decree. They also claimed to be in continuous possession although attempted trespass by the defendants on 14.9.1996 and subsequent failed attempt to dismantle the plaintiffs' sheds was acknowledged to be the basis of the suit. Therefore plaintiffs categorically denied that they took forcible possession, in pursuant to the Trial Court's status quo order.

6. After considering the rival case, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1, Guwahati after observing that the possession of the plaintiff was on the strength of the status quo order in the Misc. (J) Case No. 453/1996, on 30.5.2002 ordered for restitution of the property to the defendants, under Section 144 of the C.P.C.

7. But in the resultant Misc. Appeal No. 18/2002, filed by the aggrieved plaintiffs, the Appellate Court through the impugned judgment dated 25.7.2005 (Annexure-4) reversed the restitution order by observing that the possession of the plaintiffs is not based on any Court's order and therefore it was held that invoking of restitution powers under Section 144 of the C.P.C. was unjustified in the case.

8. Since the aggrieved petitioners (defendants) have filed a Revision Petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C., the maintainability of the case is questioned first by the respondents. The learned Advocate for the respondents Mr. P.K. Deka refers to the definition of "decree" under Section 2(2) of the C.P.C. to project that determination of any question within Section 144 am