In Brief
A temple deity's representative sued to restrain defendants from interfering with possession of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of proof of possession. Later, one defendant applied under Section 144 CPC (restitution) asking the court to restore her possession. The Supreme Court held that Section 144 only applies when a decree or order has been reversed or varied. Here, the trial court issued no decree giving either party possession—it merely dismissed the suit. Therefore, Section 144's conditions were not satisfied, and the restitution application properly failed. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's decision overturned.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.