Restitution after setting aside ex parte eviction requires express legal authority or necessary intendment

A civil court cannot direct restitution or re-delivery of property after an ex parte eviction order is set aside unless such power is conferred by express statutory provision or necessary intendment. Although restitution is not confined only to Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court cannot assume a broader inherent power in the absence of legal authority. The earlier view treating restitution as available ex debito justitiae was not accepted in light of the later Division Bench ruling, and the order directing re-delivery was held erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of an express statutory provision or necessary intendment, a civil court has power to direct restitution or re-delivery of property after an ex parte eviction order is set aside.

Analysis: The decision held that the power of restitution is not wholly confined to Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but where no express provision or provision by necessary intendment authorises re-delivery, the civil court cannot assume such power. The earlier view treating restitution as available ex debito justitiae was not accepted in the light of the later Division Bench ruling.

Conclusion: The civil court had no power to direct re-delivery in the absence of express statutory authority or necessary intendment; the impugned order was therefore erroneous.

---