Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115, 144

Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 17

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 181

Summary Held: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---Section 115---Section 144---Restitution---Mutation---Effect of Reversal of Decree---Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit---Limitation---Concurrent Findings---Petitioners challenged orders whereby mutation attested on basis of decree was cancelled and earlier Tamleek mutation restored---Mutation No.1674 dated 20.05.1997 was attested on strength of decree dated 07.04.1996---Said decree was reversed in appeal on 15.05.1998 and reversal was affirmed in revision, attaining finality---Despite reversal of decree, mutation continued to subsist on record---Respondents sought restitution under Section 144 CPC for restoration of status ante---Held, once decree forming basis of mutation is reversed, any benefit derived therefrom must be undone---Restitution under Section 144 CPC is mandatory and flows ex debito justitiae; no party should suffer due to act of Court---Plea of limitation under Article 181 Limitation Act held misconceived; restitution is not a fresh cause of action and subsisting mutation constituted continuing benefit of reversed decree---Courts below rightly cancelled mutation founded on reversed decree and restored earlier Tamleek mutation---Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is supervisory and does not permit re-appraisal of evidence in absence of perversity or misreading---Concurrent findings of Courts below found lawful and justified---Civil revision dismissed in limine.   This case concerned a civil revision petition challenging concurrent decisions of the Trial Court and Appellate Court regarding restitution under Section 144 CPC. The respondents sought cancellation of Mutation No.1674 dated 20.05.1997 because it was based on a decree dated 07.04.1996, which had already been set aside in appeal and affirmed in revision. The courts found that once the original decree was reversed, any mutation founded upon it could not legally survive. Accordingly, Mutation No.1674 was cancelled and the earlier Tamleek Mutation No.1049 dated 04.08.1988 was restored. The High Court held that restitution under Section 144 CPC is mandatory and based on the principle that no person should suffer because of an act of the…