INTRODUCTION
Today,
I will talk about the case of Mekha Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan
and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 372, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
discussed the Doctrine or the Principle of Restitution in the context of
Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides power to the civil
court to relegate the parties to a position that existed prior to the filing of
the suit or the case. The term ‘restitution’ is also used and made applicable
in the domain of the law of contract; however, presently, we are merely
concerned with the plain meaning of ‘restitution’ and the manner in which it is
understood in terms of Section 144 of CPC.
MEANING
Before
we understand the Principle of Restitution, it is important to note that “no
party should be prejudiced because of the order of the court.” In this context, let us
discuss the plain meaning of ‘restitution’ which can generally be understood in
three senses: -
“i. Return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner
or status;
ii. Compensation for benefits derived from a wrong to another; and
iii. Compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another.”
Thus,
we see that ‘restitution’ is like turning back the clocks and restoring the
original position. Yet it seems like a vague term as sometimes it refers to giving
back of something which has been unjustly taken and at other times it refers to
compensation for the injury done. This is because both ‘unjust enrichment’
and ‘unjust impoverishment’, both are grounds for invoking the Principle
of Restitution and depending upon the kind of injury or the loss, ‘restitution’
as a term derives its context and meaning.
SECTION
144 OF CPC
The
statutory recognition of the Principle of Restitution is provided under Section
144 of the Code of Civil Procedure that provides that where a decree or an
order of a Civil Court is varied, reversed, set aside or modified in any way at
appellate or in any proceedings, the original Court that had passed such decree
or order may cause restitution to return the parties to the position that existed
before such modification of the decree or order by the appellate or any other
court. To restitute the parties, the original Court may order for refund of
costs, payment of interest, damages etc. that are consequential to such
modification of decree or order. Here, the term ‘order’ includes both final
orders and interim orders. Interim orders are orders that are passed during the
pendency of a case. Basically, Section 144 ensures that a litigant is not
allowed to take benefit of an interim order when it loses the case finally at
the end. Once a case is lost to a party, the party who enjoyed benefits of an
interim order must be relegated to the position which existed prior to filing
of the case.
In
order to attract the applicability of the Principle of Restitution, there must
be a wrong or a mistake or an error committed by the Court due to which either
a party gained an advantage that it ought not to have or suffered an
impoverishment.
The
purpose of the Principle of Restitution is to make sure that no party is able
to take undue advantage of any litigation and to recognize that litigation is
not gaming or gambling where there is an element of chance in every case. A
wrong order should not be perpetuated by keeping it alive.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION
Therefore,
in conclusion, following important points emerge: -
a.
“No party should be prejudiced because of the order
of the court.”
b.
Restitution is restoration of a specific thing to its rightful owner or status
by way of compensation or any other mode.
c.
‘Unjust enrichment’ and ‘unjust impoverishment’ are grounds for invoking the
Principle of Restitution.
d.
Section 144 of CPC provides power to the civil court to relegate the parties to
a position that existed prior to the filing of the suit or the case.
e.
The purpose of the Principle of Restitution is to make sure that no party is
able to take undue advantage of any litigation.
f.
Once a case is lost to a party, the party who enjoyed benefits of an interim
order must be relegated to the position which existed prior to filing of the
case.
Hence,
I hope that the meaning of the principle of ‘restitution’ and Section 144 of
CPC is clear by now.
Can a party as defendant in suit also entitled for restitution of his possession under this section?
ReplyDeleteSuperb, well explained 💐
ReplyDeleteCan Central Administrative Tribunal grant Restitutive reliefs of promotion of degree Engineers judgement of earlier case was obtained by fraud, misstatements and concealing material facts ? Reply at yashsehgal1@gmail.com
ReplyDelete