Inherent jurisdiction can undo a court sale deed when the decree supporting it is later set aside

A court sale deed executed pursuant to an ex parte decree in a specific performance suit lost its foundation once that decree was set aside and no stay protected it. The purchaser could not claim a better title from a sale derived from a decree that no longer survived. Even if strict restitution under Section 144 CPC was unavailable, the trial court could use its inherent power under Section 151 CPC to prevent prejudice caused by an act of court and restore the prior position. The sale deed was therefore set aside and status quo ante restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to set aside the court sale deed and restore the status quo ante after the ex parte decree had been set aside.

Analysis: The sale deed had been executed only pursuant to the ex parte decree in the specific performance suit. Once that decree was set aside and no stay operated against that order, the foundation for the court sale disappeared. The Court held that the petitioner could not claim any better title on the strength of a sale deed derived from a decree that no longer survived. Even if strict restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not attracted, the trial court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to prevent prejudice caused by an act of court and to correct the situation created by the execution sale.

Conclusion: The trial court was right in setting aside the sale deed and directing restoration of the prior position, and the challenge to that order failed.

---