- (1.) This is an application filed by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar through its Registrar under Section 144 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ordering the refund of the amount paid to the writ petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Iqbal Kaur Sandhu in pursuance of the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 177 of 1974, decided on 4th March, 1975. Mr. Mongia, learned counsel for the applicant, says that in pursuance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner was paid Rs. 21,319.09 and that since that judgment was reversed by the Full Bench in L.P.A. No. 189 of 1975, the University is entitled to get refund of the amount in question. Mr. Mongia further says that the University is claiming the refund of the amount only from the date her services were terminated upto the date when she was re-instated in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge; that the University is not claiming for the period she actually worked after the judgment of the Single Judge and that this is the correct amount, which has been claimed by the University.
(2.) I had my doubts whether such an application could be made. But Mr. Mongia has invited my attention to a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which is reported as The Regional Food Controller, Meerut and another v. Hazari Mal Radha Kishan, 1967 AIR(All) 272 wherein it was held as under :- "An application under Section 144 can be made before the Court which decided the case in the first instance and cannot be made before the Court to which the execution of the decree is transferred by that Court. The right to make an application for restitution has been vested in the party to make such application before the Court of the first instance whose order has been varied on reversed. It is the Court which passes the first wrong order on account of the reversal of which the right of restitution arises is the proper Court to entertain the application under S. 144, C.P.C." He says that there is no judgment of our High Court either way. Neither the respondent is present nor anybody on her behalf is present inspite of the substituted service effected on her on 16th November, 1978.
(3.) In view of the law as laid down in Hazari Mal Radha Kishan's case this application is allowed and the writ petitioner is directed to refund Rs. 21,319.09. As there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, there will be no order as to costs.;