Restitution after reversal requires refund of purchase money, but not optional payments made without court order.

Restitution on reversal of a decree or order must, so far as possible, restore the parties to the position they would have occupied but for the judicial act, because a court's process should not injure a suitor. Where auction-purchasers paid the purchase money in reliance on confirmation and that money was applied to the judgment-debtors' liabilities, restoration of possession could be made conditional on refund of that amount. However, an optional payment made to clear a separate charge, without any court order, could not be imposed as a condition precedent. The equities were also met by denying interest on the sums in question.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on reversal of the sale-confirmation order, the judgment-debtors could obtain restoration of possession without refunding the auction-purchasers' purchase money deposited in court and applied for the benefit of the judgment-debtors' creditors. (ii) Whether the payments made by the auction-purchasers to clear the charge in favour of Gobardhan Das, and interest on the sums relating to restitution and mesne profits, could be insisted upon or awarded as conditions of restoration.

Issue (i): Whether, on reversal of the sale-confirmation order, the judgment-debtors could obtain restoration of possession without refunding the auction-purchasers' purchase money deposited in court and applied for the benefit of the judgment-debtors' creditors.

Analysis: Restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires the parties to be placed, so far as possible, in the position they would have occupied but for the reversed decree or order. The underlying principle is that the act of the Court should not injure a suitor. Since the auction-purchasers had paid the purchase money on the faith of the court's confirmation and the money had been distributed to discharge the judgment-debtors' liabilities, it would be inequitable to restore possession to the judgment-debtors without making good that amount.

Conclusion: The refund of the purchase money was rightly treated as a condition precedent to restoration, and the judgment-debtors were not entitled to possession without making that restitution.

Issue (ii): Whether the payments made by the auction-purchasers to clear the charge in favour of Gobardhan Das, and interest on the sums relating to restitution and mesne profits, could be insisted upon or awarded as conditions of restoration.

Analysis: The payment to Gobardhan Das stood on a different footing from the purchase-money deposit because it was an optional payment made without any order of Court. It could not be imposed as a condition precedent to restoration. As to interest, the equities of the case were sufficiently met by leaving both sides without interest on the respective sums.

Conclusion: The payment made to Gobardhan Das could not be made a condition of restoration, and no interest was allowed on either side.

Final Conclusion: The order for restitution was substantially upheld, with restoration conditioned on refund of the purchase money but not on repayment of the Gobardhan Das payment, and without interest.

Ratio Decidendi: On reversal of a decree or order, restitution must restore the parties to the position they would have occupied but for the judicial act, and the court must prevent its own process from causing injustice to a party who acted on the faith of that process.

---