9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Invocation of inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Limitation period for filing an application for restitution. Detailed Analysis: Restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The revision arises from proceedings for restitution. The deceased first defendant had deposited certain amounts in Court during the trial, which were withdrawn by the deceased plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of possession with arrears of rent, but the plaintiff's title was found against, and the suit was dismissed. The High Court finally disposed of the suit on 11-2-1966. The legal representatives of the first defendant filed an application on 5-2-1969 for recovery of the amount from the legal representatives of the plaintiff. The Court of first instance denied relief, stating that the defendants could have sued the plaintiff for reimbursement and that restitution would not be granted in the exercise of inherent powers. The Court also found that the petitioners had not proven the deposit and withdrawal of the amounts. The question of limitation was not considered by the Court. The lower appellate court found that no appeal lay to it, as the inherent jurisdiction of the Court had been invoked. The petitioners filed this revision against the Munsiff's order, and the delay in filing the revision was excused. Invocation of Inherent Powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The motion made by the petitioners was not for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as that section applies only when a decree or order is varied or reversed. The petitioners invoked the inherent powers of the Court to grant restitution. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure saves the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The inherent power is assumed to exist in every Court to act as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. It is a discretionary power to be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases where the established procedure may not be sufficient to give relief. The Court will exercise its inherent power if the circumstances of the case require it. Limitation Period for Filing an Application for Restitution: The main defense to the motion was that the application for restitution should have been made within the period provided in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, corresponding to Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The application was made within three years of the High Court's decision, but the respondents argued that the cause of action arose from the trial Court's decree, not the High Court's decision. Article 181 was the residuary article in the repealed enactment, applying to cases where no other article applied. The new Limitation Act, 1963, defines "application" to include "petition," intending to cover original petitions and applications under special laws. The Supreme Court's decision in Sha Mulchand & Co. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (AIR 1953 SC 98) held that Article 181 referred to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. The inherent power of the Court is independent of the Code, and an application invoking this power is not governed by Article 181 or any other Article of the Limitation Act. The inherent power is to be exercised by the Court to meet the ends of justice, and it is not limited by the provisions of the Code. In conclusion, the application for restitution was not barred by limitation, as it invoked the inherent powers of the Court, which are not subject to the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the balance amount, if any, was to be recovered by the petitioners with six percent interest from the date of withdrawal by the plaintiff, subject to the extent of the liability of the legal representatives of the plaintiff.
|
