LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/murti-bhawani-mata-mandir-rep-through-pujari-ganeshi-lal-d-through-lr-kailash-vs-ramesh-ors-20190121/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir Rep. through Pujari Ganeshi Lal (D) through Lr. Kailash vs Ramesh & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 January 2019
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 880 of 2019
Result
Allowed
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
Citation
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 529 : 2019 INSC 61
Supreme Court Reports [2019] 2 S.C.R. 529 : 2019 INSC 61
Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.144 – When not attracted – Suit for permanent injunction instituted by one ‘GL’ for restraining respondent nos.1, 2 and one ‘G’ from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute – Suit dismissed by the trial court – Appeals thereagainst were dismissed – ‘G’ filed application u/s.144, CPC inter alia for restoration of possession of the disputed land – Application dismissed by the executing court – Appeal filed by respondent no.1 – Case remanded back to the executing court – Second appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court, which was dismissed – Plea of the appellant that the plaintiff was not placed in possession by the court under any decree or order which was ultimately reversed on the dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction and hence, s.144 was not attracted – Held: s.144 applies to a situation where a decree or an order is varied or reversed in appeal, revision or any other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose – In the present case, the interim order of the trial court did not require the defendant to hand over the possession to the plaintiff – There was no decree or order of the trial court by virtue of which the appellant was given possession of the property, nor did any decree or order mandate that the respondent hand over possession to the appellant – In these circumstances, the provisions of s.144 were not attracted there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order, as contemplated by s.144 – Executing Court was justified in declining to entertain the application u/s.144 – Judgment of the High Court set aside. Suit for permanent injunction was instituted by one ‘GL’, claiming as next best friend of the deity situated at Bhawani Mata Mandir, against the respondent nos.1, 2 and one ‘G’. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Appeals filed thereagainst were dismissed. ‘G’ filed application u/s.144, CPC inter alia for restoration of possession of the disputed land. The application was dismissed by the executing court. Respondent no.1 filed appeal, which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the executing court. The appellant filed second appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court

Read the full headnote (2 more paragraphs)

HELD: 1.1 Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to a situation where a decree or an order is varied or reversed in appeal, revision or any other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose. In that situation, the Court which has passed the decree may cause restitution to be made, on an application of any party entitled, so as to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for the decree or order or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified. The court is empowered to pass orders which are consequential in nature to the decree or order being varied or reversed. In the present case, the interim order of the Trial court did not require the defendant to hand over the possession to the plaintiff. There was no decree or order of the Trial court by virtue of which the appellant was given possession of the property, nor did any decree or order mandate that the respondent hand over possession to the appellant. [Paras 10, 11] [533-F-H; 534-A]

1.2 In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 144, CPC were not attracted there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order as contemplated by Section 144. The executing court was justified in declining to entertain the application under Section 144, CPC. The order of the first appellate court which was affirmed by the High Court was unsustainable. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 12, 13] [534-B-C]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Bench at Indore. A suit1 was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Sardarpur, Dist. Dhar (M.P.) by one Ganeshi Lal claiming as the next friend of the diety situated at Bhawani Mata Mandir, Gram Dasai, Tehsil Sardarpur. The suit was for a permanent injunction against Geetabai (since deceased) and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 restraining them from interfering with the possession of t
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →