Today, I will talk about the case of Mekha Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 372, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine or the Principle of Restitution in the context of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Today, I will talk about the case of Mekha Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 372, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine or the Principle of Restitution in the context of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
To know more about the present post, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2022/04/principle-or-doctrine-of-restitution.html
Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD
Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon
Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.
Credits:
Music by Wataboi from Pixabay
Thank you for listening!
Hi everyone.
I am Suyash Verma and today, I will talk about the case of Mekha Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 372, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine or the Principle of Restitution in the context of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides power to the civil court to relegate the parties to a position that existed prior to the filing of the suit or the case. The term ‘restitution’ is also used and made applicable in the domain of the law of contract; however, presently, we are merely concerned with the plain meaning of ‘restitution’ and the manner in which it is understood in terms of Section 144 of CPC.
Before we understand the Principle of Restitution, it is important to note that “no party should be prejudiced because of the order of the court.” In this context, let us discuss the plain meaning of ‘restitution’ which can generally be understood in three senses: -
“i. Return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or status;
ii. Compensation for benefits derived from a wrong to another; and
iii. Compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another.”
Thus, we see that ‘restitution’ is like turning back the clocks and restoring the original position. Yet it seems like a vague term as sometimes it refers to giving back of something which has been unjustly taken and at other times it refers to compensation for the injury done. This is because both ‘unjust enrichment’ and ‘unjust impoverishment’, both are grounds for invoking the Principle of Restitution and depending upon the kind of injury or the loss, ‘restitution’ as a term derives its context and meaning.
The statutory recognition of the Principle of Restitution is provided under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure that provides that where a decree or an order of a Civil Court is varied, reversed, set aside or modified in any way at appellate or in any proceedings, the original Court that had passed such decree or order may cause restitution to return the parties to the position that existed before such modification of the decree or order by the appellate or any other court. To restitute the parties, the original Court may order for refund of costs, payment of interest, damages etc. that are consequential to such modification of decree or order. Here, the term ‘order’ includes both final orders and interim orders. Interim orders are orders that are passed during the pendency of a case. Basically, Section 144 ensures that a litigant is not allowed to take benefit of an interim order when it loses the case finally at the end. Once a case is lost to a party, the party who enjoyed benefits of an interim order must be relegated to the position which existed prior to filing of the case.
In order to attract the applicability of the Principle of Restitution, there must be a wrong or a mistake or an error committed by the Court due to which either a party gained an advantage that it ought not to have or suffered an impoverishment.
The purpose of the Principle of Restitution is to make sure that no party is able to take undue advantage of any litigation and to recognize that litigation is not gaming or gambling where there is an element of chance in every case. A wrong order should not be perpetuated by keeping it alive.
Therefore, in conclusion, following important points emerge: -
a. “No party should be prejudiced because of the order of the court.”
b. Restitution is restoration of a specific thing to its rightful owner or status by way of compensation or any other mode.
c. ‘Unjust enrichment’ and ‘unjust impoverishment’ are grounds for invoking the Principle of Restitution.
d. Section 144 of CPC provides power to the civil court to relegate the parties to a position that existed prior to the filing of the suit or the case.
e. The purpose of the Principle of Restitution is to make sure that no party is able to take undue advantage of any litigation.
f. Once a case is lost to a party, the party who enjoyed benefits of an interim order must be relegated to the position which existed prior to filing of the case.
Hence, I hope that the meaning of the principle of ‘restitution’ and Section 144 of CPC is clear by now.
So, I hope you enjoyed listening to the show.
Thank you for listening.
Please do not forget to like, subscribe, share and comment.
See you next time, till then stay tuned.