Restitution is not a mere technicality but an institutional duty: HC upholds tenant’s rights, Read Judgment

“The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be exercised whenever the justice of the case demands.”

Emphasizing the fundamental obligation of courts toward a successful litigant, the Andhra Pradesh High Court scrutinized the dismissal of a plea for restitution of possession despite a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Petitioner. The case revolved around the validity of a sale executed during the pendency of tenancy proceedings and the consequential relief sought by the Petitioner. As the matter reached the High Court, the focus shifted to the scope of restitution, the impact of prior judicial decisions, and the role of the Executing Court in upholding legal rights.

Brief Facts:

The Civil Revision Petition challenged the order dated 19.07.2023 in E.P. No. 19 of 2021 in A.T.C. No. 2 of 2003 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, dismissing the Petitioner’s plea for restoration of possession under Order XXI Rule 35(1) read with Sections 144 and 151 CPC.

The dispute arose from A.T.C. No. 2 of 2003, where the Petitioner, a tenant, sought to declare a reasonable sale price and secure consequential reliefs. Despite a status quo order, Respondent No. 1 sold the property to Respondents 2 and 3. The Special Officer voided the sale and upheld the Petitioner’s claim, but appellate courts ruled in favor of the Respondents. The Supreme Court later restored the Special Officer’s order. Seeking re-delivery of possession, the Petitioner filed an execution petition, which was dismissed, leading to the present revision petition.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The Petitioner contended that the Special Officer had already declared the sale in favor of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as null and void. Since the Supreme Court restored the Special Officer’s order, the Executing Court should have granted restoration of possession.

It was further argued that the sale occurred during the pendency of the A.T.C. proceedings despite the status quo order, and since the sale was declared void, the possession should have been restored to the Petitioner. The refusal to order restitution was legally unsustainable.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that a revision petition was not maintainable and that an appeal should have been filed instead, as per the precedent in Khandavilli Rudraveni v. Khandavilli Annavaram.

It was further argued that since there was no specific relief of possession granted in the A.T.C. order, the Executing Court could not go beyond the decree. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner had to file an independent suit for possession rather than seeking restitution through execution proceedings.

Additionally, it was asserted that Respondent No. 2 was in possession of the property since 2006 and that the claim for possession was time-barred and legally untenable in an execution petition.

Observations of the Court:

The Court observed that “the rights of the parties crystallized as on the date of the institution of the case.” It noted that “the forcible dispossession in violation of that right by a subsequent act of the parties should be undone in proceedings under Section 151 C.P.C as a logical consequence and as an institutional obligation towards the Petitioner.”

It criticized the Special Officer’s order, stating that it “had virtually undone the entire process of litigation and relief granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that there is no relief of possession” and that it “committed a grave error in not allowing the application.” The Court further remarked that the order “has made the entire process of litigation a farce by placing premium on acts of the wrongdoer.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kavita Trehan v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., the Court reaffirmed that “the jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be exercised whenever the justice of the case demands.” It concluded that “this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is crystally wrong as it ignores the fundamental obligation of the Court towards a successful litigant.”

The decision of the Court:

The order of the lower court dated 19.07.2023 was set aside, and the civil revision petition was allowed. The Special Officer under the Act was directed to ensure the delivery of possession of the scheduled property to the Petitioner within one month from receiving the certified copy of the order, with no further extensions. If necessary, police assistance was to be taken suo motu to enforce compliance within the prescribed time. No order was made as to costs, and all pending applications were deemed closed.

Picture Source :