Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:

1. Jurisdiction to Restore Status Quo: The court has the authority to restore the status quo ante in cases where an injunction has been violated, including the power to order the return of possession if dispossession occurs in defiance of a court order (!) (!) .

2. Facts of the Case: The plaintiff obtained an ad interim injunction preventing dispossession from the premises. The defendants violated this injunction by dispossessing the plaintiff, prompting the plaintiff to seek the court’s intervention under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to restore possession (!) (!) (!) .

3. Court’s Findings: The court found that the defendants had illegally dispossessed the plaintiff despite the injunction, and therefore, the court had the inherent jurisdiction to restore the previous status quo, including ordering the defendants to re-instate the plaintiff’s possession (!) (!) (!) .

4. Legal Basis for Restoration: The court’s authority to restore the status quo ante in such circumstances is supported by the principle that a court can exercise its inherent powers to undo wrongful dispossession, especially when an injunction has been disobeyed (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. Opposition to the Order: The defendants argued that the relief of recovery of possession should not be granted without amending the plaint to explicitly claim such relief, and that granting such relief would alter the nature of the suit. They relied on precedents where amendments were necessary before granting mandatory injunctions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. Court’s Rationale: The court distinguished the present case from situations where the subject matter was destroyed before any interim relief was granted. Here, since an injunction was in place and was violated, the court had the jurisdiction to restore possession without requiring an amended plaint (!) (!) (!) .

7. Final Decision: The court upheld the trial court’s order to restore possession, dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendants, and emphasized that the court’s inherent jurisdiction permits such restorative orders in cases of disobedience of injunctions (!) (!) (!) .

8. Overall Principle: The court affirmed that it has the authority to pass orders to restore the status quo in cases of violation of injunctions, exercising its inherent powers to ensure justice and uphold the integrity of court orders (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.