The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to enforce restitution under Section 144 CPC and its inherent powers under Section 151 to ensure complete justice between the parties.

ORDER :

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 29.09.2016 (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by learned City Judge, Jammu (for short ‘the trial court’) in case titled as “Rajesh Gupta Vs. Veena Gurtoo and another”.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant petition reveal that the plaintiff/respondent herein filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction along with an application for interim relief against the defendants/petitioners herein stating therein that he is owner in possession of House No. 127 situated at Lower Laxmi Nagar, Sarwal, Jammu having been purchased by him vide sale deed dated 09.03.2007 and that the boundary wall of the said house which is six feet in height separates the same from the house of the defendants/petitioners herein and that the said boundary wall as also the pillars of the main gate abutting the said boundary wall, due to heavy rains, got damaged requiring immediate repairs and in order to make necessary repairs in the said wall, he started making necessary repairs in the said wall to which the defendants/petitioners herein objected to and caused hurdles compelling the plaintiff/respondent herein to file the suit which after persuasion of the defendants/petitioners herein did not yield any results for not effecting repairs in the wall.

3. The trial Court, upon entertaining the suit on 22.09.2010, passed the interim order in the application for interim relief accompanying the suit restraining the defendants/petitioners herein from interfering in any manner in the repair of the boundary wall and the pillar of the main gate of the house of the plaintiff/respondent herein. It was further clarified that the plaintiff/respondent herein shall raise the construction in his own land i.e. well within the suit property and that too only on the foundation of the boundary wall which already existed on spot and upto the same height of which it existed earlier. The said order, however, was subject to objections from other side and notice was directed to be served upon the defendants/petitioners herein by the plaintiff/respondent herein in terms of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Order 39 CPC and the case came to be fixed for further proceedings on 29.09.2010.

4. The defendants/petitioners herein in response to the summons issued by the trial court appeared and received the copies of the plaint as also the application for interim relief and sought time to file written statement as also objections to the suit by the next date. The case then came to be posted for further proceedings on 12.10.2010. Till 12.10.2010, defendants/petitioners did not file any response and instead the application came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent. It is stated that before the next date fixed in the case, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed an application on 05.10.2010 seeking permission of the court to withdraw the suit which application came to be allowed and the suit came to be permitted to be withdrawn.

5. It is being next stated that the defendants/petitioners appeared before the trial court on 12.10.2010 i.e. the actual date fixed in the case before the trial court and came to know on the said date that the suit, in fact, stands withdrawn by the plaintiff/respondent herein on 05.10.2010.

6. It is being next stated in the petition that in the meanwhile, the plaintiff/respondent herein have had besides effecting repairs in the boundary wall and pillar of the gate also raised the height of subject matter i.e. boundary wall which compelled the defendants/petitioners herein to report the matter to the police which actually could not do anything because of the restraint order in the matter except booking the parties under sections 107/117 RPC, after conducting an enquiry there on the spot.

7. It is being further stated in the application that the plaintiff/respondent herein with a design withdrew the suit before the case fixed in the case and after raising the const