Doctrine of Restitution under CPC

Restitution under the CPC holds vital significance in rectifying legal imbalances. 

In simple terms, Restitution refers to giving back or returning something that was taken unfairly from someone else. It means restoring something that was lost or stolen to its rightful owner. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, restitution is a legal action that helps bring back something to its original state.

In CPC, the doctrine of Restitution remedies unfair advantages gained from erroneous court decisions, ensuring equitable outcomes. 

Section 144 of the CPC empowers courts to correct injustices by ordering compensation, interest, and restitution.

What is Doctrine of Restitution under CPC?

Restitution under CPC refers to the process by which a court rectifies any unjust benefits gained by one party due to a decision or order that is later reversed, modified or set aside. In essence, it aims to restore parties to the position they would have been in if the erroneous decision had not occurred. Restitution ensures that the party who benefitted unfairly returns any gains, and the party who suffered loss due to the incorrect decision is adequately compensated.

Section 144 of the CPC (Civil Procedure Code) specifically deals with doctrine of restitution. It empowers the court to order restitution when a decree or order is altered or reversed through an appeal, revision or other legal proceedings or when it’s set aside or modified in a suit. The court has the authority to make various orders for refunding costs, paying interest, awarding damages, providing compensation, and more, in order to rectify the situation caused by the incorrect decision.

The principle behind doctrine of restitution in CPC is to uphold fairness and prevent injustice in legal proceedings. It’s based on the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit,” which means that the act of the court should harm no one. Restitution seeks to ensure that the effects of erroneous judgments are corrected and that parties are placed in the position they would have been in if the mistake hadn’t occurred.

Restitution and Section 144 of the CPC

Section 144 of the CPC addresses situations where a court decision or order is changed, reversed or altered through an appeal, revision or legal process.

As per Section 144 (1) if such a decision results in one party benefiting unfairly at the expense of another, the court that issued the initial decision is responsible for restoring fairness. This is done by ensuring that the parties are returned, as much as possible, to their original positions before the decision was changed. The court has the authority to make various orders to achieve this, including reimbursing costs, paying interest, compensating for damages, and accounting for any profits earned during the period of unfair benefit.

Explanation to Section 144 (1):

• When referring to the “Court which passed the decree or order” in subsection (1), it includes:
• If the decision was changed or reversed through an appeal or revision, it refers to the court that issued the initial decision;
• If the decision was set aside through a separate legal action, it refers to the court that issued the initial decision;
• If the original court no longer exists or lacks the authority to enforce the decision, it refers to the court that would have jurisdiction over the matter if the original lawsuit were filed when applying for restitution under CPC.

Section 144 (2) states that no separate legal action can be initiated to gain restitution or any other relief that could be obtained through the process described in subsection (1).

Section 144 allows the victorious party to be reinstated to their previous state and gives the court the power to order restitution in CPC when a court decision or order is changed or reversed through appeal, revision or another legal procedure.

However, there used to be a disagreement among the courts about whether Section 144 applied to cases where a decision was set aside or modified through means other than an appeal. The amendment made to Section 144 clarifies that it applies to these cases as well, where a decision is set aside or modified through other means.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1956, the scope of Section 144 has been expanded to cover not only a court decree but also an order. As a result, when a judgment or order is ultimately reversed or modified, Section 144 requires the initial court to, upon the request of the concerned party, ensure restitution is made to return the parties to the positions they would have been in if the incorrect judgment or order hadn’t occurred.

Purpose of Restitution in CPC

The doctrine of restitution under CPC is rooted in the principle “actus curiae neminem gravabit,” which means that the court’s actions should not harm anyone. This doctrine is built on principles of fairness and equity. In cases involving restitution, the court should issue orders that uphold justice for both parties involved.

In the case of Jai Berham v. Kedar Nath Marwari (1922 SCC On Line PC 41), the Privy Council emphasised that it’s the responsibility of the court under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code to place the parties in the position they would have been in if the decree or a part of it that was reversed or varied had not occurred. This duty and jurisdiction don’t arise solely from this section; they are inherent in the court’s broader authority to act justly and fairly given the circumstances and parties.

Scope and Application of Section 144 of CPC

Section 144 applies to courts and covers both decrees and orders. This provision can be used systematically and applies to interim as well as interlocutory orders. For its application, it’s not necessary that the original decree should have been completely reversed. This provision can also be used when a decree is partially reversed, modified or varied.

Conditions for Applying Restitution under Section 144 of CPC

In the case of Ganesh Prasad v. Adi Hindu Social Service League (AIR 1975 AP 310), it was ruled that certain conditions must be met before restitution can be ordered under Section 144:

• The restitution requested must pertain to a decree or order that has been reversed or varied.
• The party seeking restitution must be entitled to benefit under the decree or order that is being reversed.
• The relief sought must be a proper consequence of the reversal or variation of the decree or order.

In simpler terms, there should be a mistaken judgment, one party has benefited from this mistake, and the erroneous judgment has been reversed, varied or set aside. If these conditions are fulfilled, the court is obligated to grant restitution under CPC.

Who Can Apply for Restitution in CPC?

For someone to be eligible for doctrine of restitution under this section, two conditions must be met:

• They must be a party involved in the decree or order that was changed or reversed.
• They must have gained some benefit through restitution or by other means from the decree or order that is being reversed.

Against Whom Can Restitution Be Granted?

Restitution can be ordered not only against the parties directly involved in the legal case but also against their legal representatives. This includes individuals like transferees pending litigation, those who have attached the decree, and decree-holders.

Who Can Order Restitution under CPC?

The court that initially passed the decree or made the order can order restitution in CPC. This includes:

• If the decree or order was changed or reversed through an appellate or revisional process, the court of first instance.
• If the decree or order was set aside through a separate lawsuit, the court of first instance issued that decree or order.
• If the original court no longer exists or lacks the authority to enforce the decree or order, the court would have had jurisdiction over the lawsuit if it had been filed when applying for restitution under this section.

Nature of Proceedings

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahijibhai Mohanbhai Barot v. Patel Manibhai Gokalbhai (AIR 1965 SC 1477) clarifies that proceedings for restitution in CPC are essentially part of the execution process.

Limitation

An application under Section 144 is considered part of the execution of a decree and is subject to the rules of limitation outlined in Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The period within which such an application must be made is 12 years, starting from the date of the appellate decree or order.

Appeal

Section 2(2) of the CPC explicitly states that the decision on a question under Section 144 can be appealed.

Cases on Restitution under Section 144

Rodger v. Comptoir descompte de Paris

The primary duty of all courts is to ensure that their actions do not harm any of the parties involved in a case. When we talk about the actions of the court, it encompasses not just the decisions of the initial court, but also those of any intermediate appellate courts, all the way up to the highest court that ultimately concludes the matter.

Jai Berham v. Kedar Nath Maewari

A sale that was carried out as part of enforcing a court decree was invalidated because the property described in the sale certificate was different from the one that was originally attached. This property was bought by someone not connected to the court decree, and the money he paid was used to satisfy the decree. The person against whom the judgment was made requested to regain possession of the property.

Amba Lal v. Ramgopal

In a situation where the property was sold by A in order to fulfil a money decree, claiming it belonged to his debtor, and he himself purchased the property. B and C, who also had decrees against the same debtor, asked for an equal distribution of the proceeds. Consequently, A deposited the money from the sale into court, and it was divided among A, B, and C proportionately. Later, co-owners of the debtor’s property obtained a decree that excluded part of the property from the sale. This reduced the amount available for distribution, resulting in A being owed a refund from B and C.

S. Prabhavathi vs Rohini Kilaru and Anr.

The Supreme Court noted that Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure covers only a portion of the general restitution under PCC and is not exhaustive. The power to order restitution in CPC is inherent in every court and will be exercised whenever fairness demands it. This can occur under inherent powers even when a case doesn’t strictly fall within the scope of Section 144. Section 144 starts by stating, “Where and in so far as a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose….”

Jamaluddin v. Mirsa Quader Baig

It was determined that when a tenant was wrongfully removed from the premises by the landlord against interim injunction orders, there’s no need to file a petition under Section 144 of the CPC to regain possession. The court can restore possession using its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC.

Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun

In a case where a plaintiff, involved in a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of tenancy, was forcefully evicted against interim injunction orders, the civil court can use its inherent power to issue a temporary mandatory injunction. This could involve directing the police to help restore possession. The inherent authority to order restitution under CPC can be exercised by an authorised person entrusted with court functions, like a district munsiff to whom the decree is transferred for execution under Section 66 of the Madras Village Courts Act 1889.

Conclusion

The doctrine of restitution under CPC aims to return the harmed party to the initial state where any advantage gained from a mistaken court judgment is given back to the party that shouldn’t have received it. Restitution in CPC isn’t a novel idea, and Section 144 simply legally acknowledges this concept. Section 144 of the CPC pertains to requests for restitution.