Skip to content


Sufal Chandra Golui and anr. Vs. Surendra Nath Dhara - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Cal90
AppellantSufal Chandra Golui and anr.
RespondentSurendra Nath Dhara
Cases ReferredBeni Madhab Singh v. Pran Singh
Excerpt:
- .....in a long series of cases which were noticed by mookerjee, j., in the case of beni madhab singh v. pran singh (1912) 14 ic 456 it has been settled that the power of a court to grant restitution is not confined to cases covered by the provisions of section 144 of the code. the power extends also to other cases because the court has an inherent right irrespective of the section to order restitution. such inherent right has been recognised by section 151 of the code. the result of applying the principle of the said section to a case which comes before the court is that the court has to make such order as would enable it to do effective and complete justice between the parties. it is not necessary therefore to support the order from which this appeal has been preferred by reference.....
Judgment:

1. It is too late now to dispute the proposition that the provisions of Section 144, Civil P. C, are by no means xhaustive as they do not pretend to cover all cases in which it becomes the duty of the Court to order restitution. In a long series of cases which were noticed by Mookerjee, J., in the case of Beni Madhab Singh v. Pran Singh (1912) 14 IC 456 it has been settled that the power of a Court to grant restitution is not confined to cases covered by the provisions of Section 144 of the Code. The power extends also to other cases because the Court has an inherent right irrespective of the section to order restitution. Such inherent right has been recognised by Section 151 of the Code. The result of applying the principle of the said section to a case which comes before the Court is that the Court has to make such order as would enable it to do effective and complete justice between the parties. It is not necessary therefore to support the order from which this appeal has been preferred by reference only to the provisions of Section 144 of the Code. It cannot be disputed that the amount for which the restitution has been so ordered was paid by the opposite party as a consequence, indirect though it may be, of an erroneous decree which the appellant had obtained against the respondent. We are of opinion therefore that there is no reason to interfere with the order from which the appeal has been preferred. The appeal accordingly is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //