The Court has inherent powers to order restitution to undo the wrong done by the Court on being satisfied that the order was passed on being misled by the petitioner.

( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against an order dated 17-8-1987 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Bulandshar dismissing the petitioners revision.

( 2 ) THE petitioners filed a Suit No. 40 of 1985 for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the construction of the wall.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed on the ground that by means of Sale Deed dated 27-7-1981, they became the owners of the land shown by letters (Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ga, Ra ). There was a way of 16 feet in width towards the north of their house and towards the north of that passage defendants house was situated. Towards the West and South of the disputed passage is a main road connecting the same. This passage belonged to him and he has a right to raise the wall.

( 4 ) AN application for interim injunction was also moved on 25-10-1985.

( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge granted the ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from obstructing the construction of the wall. On the basis of this order, the petitioner completed the constructions.

( 6 ) AFTER the notices were issued to the defendants, they filed an objection. It was stated that the plaintiffs obtained the interim order by concealment of material facts. The passage is a public path-way of 12 feet in width, on which, the plaintiff has constructed the wall under the protection of injunction order resulting in narrowing down the passage by 6 feet. The map attached to the plaint was also misleading. neither, the sale deed nor its copy has been filed along with the plaint which would have clarified the claim of the plaintiff.

( 7 ) THE defendants moved an application (20-C) for removing the constructed wail raised on the basis of injunction order. The Court exercising its power under S. 151, C. P. C. ordered for removal of the same on 13-7-1987. A revision was filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge against the said order which was dismissed on 17-8-1987. The present petition is directed against this order.

( 8 ) HEARD Sri S. N. Verma appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar appearing on behalf of the respondents.

( 9 ) THE only point which has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of demolition of the said wall which has been completed. His further contention was that passing of the impugned order amounted to adjudication of the case finally at the interim stage without permitting the parties to lead the evidence.

( 10 ) IN order to examine the worth of this argument, few relevant facts ought to be looked into. The plaintiff filed suit on the basis of the sale deed dated 27-7-1981. It is the document of title and the basis of the suit. It has not been filed along with the plaint. It has been deliberately withheld by the plaintiff. The purpose of the suit appears to be to encroach upon the 6 feet wide passage and include the same within the boundary wall. The learned Civil Judge granted the injunction on mere statement in the injunction application and the plaint which were in no way sufficient for granting such an injunction. If the plaintiff had filed the sale deed, then probably, the Court would not have passed that order. The petitioner has definitely mislead the Court in obtaining the said order. The learned Civil Judge, should have been more careful in dealing with such matters.

( 11 ) IN my opinion, the learned Civil Judge had committed a serious mistake in granting such an injunction. In doing so, he has practically decreed the entire suit. It was a fit case, either not to grant injunction order or if the Court felt that there was a necessity, the defendants should have been heard before passing such an order.

( 12 ) IN the garb of the injunction order, the plaintiff completed the constructions.

( 13 ) AFTER raising the wall, he made an application for withdrawal of the suit as the purpose of the suit has been achieved by the injunction