Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 2039 2020 SLD 2039 2020 CLC 1813
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 13884 of 2020, decision & hearing Date : 02-07-2020
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Ch. Abdul Majeed, Zahid Majeed and M. Shafique Ahmad for Petitioners. Muhammad Shahid Tasawar Rao for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD ATIF IQBAL AND OTHERS

VS

ZEESHAN ALI AND OTHERS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 144

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 144---Suit for recovery of possession---Application for restitution---Scopes assailed order passed by courts below whereby they were directed to restore the possession of suit property to the respondents---Validitys, in satisfaction of ex parte and decree, had taken over possession of the property from respondents but subsequently the said decree was set aside by High Court---Court was bound to perform its statutory duty to cause restitution, as such the concurrent orders of the lower fora putting the parties at the place prior to ex parte decree were perfectly passed---Constitutional petition was dismissed with costs. S.N. Banerji and another v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co., Ltd. (in Liquidation) and another AIR 1941 PC 128 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- S. 144 --- Application for restitution---Actus curiae neminem gravabit---Scope---Doctrine of restitution is based upon cardinal maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man)---Maxim: contemplates a case where property was received through order of the Court, which was later on reversed or varied; in such situation, it becomes wrongful possession hence, imperative upon the beneficiary of said erroneous order/decree to make restitution to the other party what he had lost, otherwise Court is armed with the powers to place the applicant in the position in which he would have been, if the order had not been made, else it would be inequitable and unjust---Concept of restitution is as old as the law itself---Section 144, C.P.C., provides procedure, whereas the power to order restitution is inherent in Court and is sparingly exercised whenever justice demands---Expression 'the act of the Court' does not mean merely the act of primary Court or of any intermediate Court of appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole from the lowest Court, which entertains jurisdiction over the matter, upto the highest Court which finally disposes of the case---Court reversing the order/ decree need not specifically direct restitution of the property, rather such right arises automatically, which is enforceable before the Trial…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492