LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir (rep. through Pujari Ganeshi Lal, deceased, through LR Kailash) v. Rajesh & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 61Decided 21 Jan 2019
Civil Appeal No. 880 of 2019
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Hemant Gupta

Background

A suit for permanent injunction filed on behalf of a deity (Bhawani Mata Mandir) against the respondents over agricultural land was dismissed by the trial court, first appellate court, and the High Court in second appeal, on the finding that the plaintiff-temple had failed to prove possession of the land. After this dismissal, one of the original defendants applied under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution (return of possession and mesne profits), and this application was eventually allowed in appeal and upheld by the High Court, prompting the temple's representative to approach the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 144 CPC restitution applies only where a decree or order has itself been varied, reversed, or set aside, placing a party back in the position it would have occupied but for that order. Here, the trial court's interim order in the original suit had never directed the defendant to hand over possession to the plaintiff, so there was no decree or order whose reversal could trigger a restitution claim. Finding that the essential precondition for Section 144 was absent, the Court held the restitution application was wrongly entertained and set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissing the respondent's restitution application.

Lesson Learnt

Restitution under Section 144 CPC is not a general remedy for any party unhappy with how possession unfolded during litigation: it is strictly tied to undoing the specific effects of a decree or order that was later varied or reversed, and cannot be invoked where no such order ever changed the parties' possession in the first place.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case