- (1.) COTROVERSY in this revision petition lies in a narrow compass.
(2.) THE respondent brought a suit against the petitioner for its eviction from a shop which was decreed by the trial court of First Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, on 27 -10 -1980. The decree -holder took out execution of the decree on 4 -11 -1980 and obtained vacant possession of the shop 8 -11 -1980. An appeal against the aforesaid decree was taken by the petitioner to the court of District Judge, Srinagar, on 13 -11 -1980, On the very same day, the District Judge passed an order restoring the possession of the suit shop to the petitioner which was accordingly restored. This order was challenged by the respondent in Civil Revision Petition No. 141/80, which was accepted by this court on 10 -9 -1981, and the respondent ordered to be put back into possession of the shop. The operative part of the aforesaid order reads thus : - "In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order passed by the District Judge is set aside. The decree -holder shall be at liberty to move the trial court for restitution of the suit shop. The District Judge shall try to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Parties are directed to appear before him on 21 -9 -1981."
(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction, the respondent brought an application for restitution u/s 144 Civil Pr. Code in the First Addl. Munsiff, Srinagar, An application for transfer of the aforesaid application was moved by the petitioner in the High Court , which was allowed by it and the aforesaid application u/s 144 was transferred by it to the court of Sub -Registrar, Munsiff, Srinagar. The transferee court eventually allowed the application and ordered restitution of the shop in favour of the respondent by its order dated 28 -1 -1982. It is this order which has been assailed in this revision petition. Appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Shah has attacked the aforesaid order on three grounds ; firstly, that Section 144 had no application to the case, because what had been varied or reversed by this court in Civil Revision Petition No. 141/80 was the interim order of the learned District Judge restoring the possession of the shop to the petitioner, but not any decree passed by him, adding, that even Sec. 151 had no application to the said case because no suit or appeal was subjudice before the trail court in which that could have possibly exercised its inherent powers ; secondly, that even this court by its order passed in Civil Revision No, 141/80 could not have conferred jurisdiction on the trial court which it otherwise did not have ; and thirdly, that the equities did not warant the exercise of its inherent powers by the court in favour of the respondent.;