Doctrine Of Restitution Under Section 144 CPC: Scope And Judicial Trends – How Courts Restore The Parties To Their Original Position When A Decree Is Reversed
- IJLLR Journal
- Oct 5, 2025
- 2 min read
Samson Albert S, B.A., LLB (Hons), Vinayaka Mission’s Law School, Chennai.
ABSTRACT
The doctrine of restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a crucial mechanism for ensuring fairness in civil litigation. Its central aim is to restore parties to the position they originally occupied before an erroneous decree or order was passed. Restitution prevents unjust enrichment by ensuring that no party is allowed to retain benefits obtained under a judgment that is later reversed, varied, or set aside. The principle is guided by the maxim “Actus curiae neminem gravabit” no one should suffer because of an act of the court.
This research paper examines the scope and judicial trends relating to restitution under Section 144 CPC. It explores how the doctrine operates when decrees are overturned, the conditions for seeking restitution, and the distinction between restitution and execution. Through analysis of leading cases such as Binayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P., the paper highlights how Indian courts have interpreted restitution as not merely a statutory right but a necessary remedy flowing from equity and justice. The study also discusses how courts extend restitution beyond Section 144 by invoking inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, especially in cases involving interim orders or stays.
Further, the paper critically assesses challenges like delays, multiplicity of proceedings, enforcement difficulties, and misuse by litigants. A comparative insight into the approach of common law jurisdictions such as the UK and US shows that India’s statutory framework is narrower, though the judiciary has broadened its application through purposive interpretation. Finally, the paper suggests reforms such as time-bound disposal of applications, automatic restitution upon reversal of decrees, clearer treatment of third-party rights, and deterrent costs to prevent misuse.
Overall, the research reaffirms that restitution is not just a procedural formality but an essential safeguard for the credibility of the judicial process. By strengthening Section 144 CPC and its practical implementation, courts can ensure that justice is truly achieved and not undermined by temporary or erroneous decrees.
Keywords: Restitution, Section 144 CPC, unjust enrichment, act of the court, civil procedure, equity, judicial trends, inherent powers, comparative law, fairness in litigation.
