https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289018 Restitution was treated as becoming enforceable only when the respondents' title was finally declared in their favour, not merely on setting aside the ex parte decree. Because the land was under attachment and in custodia legis, possession could not be restored earlier, and the applications filed after final adjudication were held within limitation. The Court also stated that Section 144 CPC is not exhaustive and that restitution may be granted under Section 151 CPC where necessary. On the land-reform issues, the respondents were not barred for not filing a suit under Section 209, and the appellants did not acquire sirdari rights under Section 210. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2020 18:49:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289018 Restitution was treated as becoming enforceable only when the respondents' title was finally declared in their favour, not merely on setting aside the ex parte decree. Because the land was under attachment and in custodia legis, possession could not be restored earlier, and the applications filed after final adjudication were held within limitation. The Court also stated that Section 144 CPC is not exhaustive and that restitution may be granted under Section 151 CPC where necessary. On the land-reform issues, the respondents were not barred for not filing a suit under Section 209, and the appellants did not acquire sirdari rights under Section 210. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289018