AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Shrivastava, J.—Heard.
Respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit bearing No. 56-A/1988 for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed in his favour on 4-5-1988. Thereafter, a suit was filed by the petitioners for declaring the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 56-A/1988 to be void. The said civil suit bearing No. 65-A/1993 has been dismissed on 9-10-1998 by the Trial Court. On appeal bearing No. 37-A/1998, the 1st Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 65-A/93. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Sections 144 and 151 of the CPC for restitution of the Civil Suit No. 56-A/88 and the Trial Court vide impugned order restored the suit in its original number.
Vide judgment and decree passed by 1st Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 37-A/1998 on 12-9-2000, the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 65-A/1993 has been set aside. As a result thereof, the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 56-A/1988 had been declared void. Under Sections 144 and 151 of the CPC, the decree declared by Civil Court null and void cannot be restored. Section 144 of the CPC permits restitution of status and not restoration of suit. As a result of decree passed in Civil Suit No. 56-A/ 1988 on 4-5-1988, the status of any of the parties admittedly has not been changed. Therefore, the question of placing any party in its original position does not arise. The impugned order passed by Trial Court without properly appreciating the object and intent of the legislation, suffers from illegality.
In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by Court below is set aside. However, parties may seek appropriate remedy available under law.
Parties to bear their own costs.