JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpore, dated 21st May 1903. The facts of this case are that the Plaintiff sued for conformation of possession. He obtained a decree, and though his decree was only for confirmation of possession, he applied for execution, which was granted him. In the execution proceedings he admitted receipt of possession-The Defendant appealed and the decree was reversed. The Defendant then applied for restitution of possession, alleging that he had been dispossessed. The Court of first instance appointed a Commissioner to enquire into the matter and report to what mesne profits he was entitled. The Plaintiff, however, urged that if the Court had put him into possession, it had done wrong and gone beyond the terms of the decree and therefore the Defendant should be relegated to a regular suit. This objection was overruled. He then appealed to the Judicial Commissioner, who dismissed his appeal. He now appeals to this Court. 2. We are of opinion that the orders of the lower Courts are right. If the Plaintiff' was put into possession of the land, when he had only obtained a decree for confirmation of possession, a question which is to be enquired into by the Commissioner, there seems to us to be no reason why the Defendant should be relegated to a separate suit, or why he should not obtain restitution and redress in a summary way from the Court, which was induced by him to give him too much. There is no authority in support of the Appellant's contention, whereas the case of Raja Singh v. Kooldip Singh I. L. R. 21 Cal. 989 (1894) is clear authority the other way. In this case a dictum of Sir I'arnes Peacock is cited to the effect that "the decree of reversal necessarily causes with it the right to restitution of all that has been taken under the erroneous decree in the same manner as an ordinary decree carries with it a right to have it executed. "In the judgment in this case an extract from a decision of Chief Justice Petheram in Mookoond Lal v. Mahomed Sami Meah I. L. R. 14 Cal. "In the judgment in this case an extract from a decision of Chief Justice Petheram in Mookoond Lal v. Mahomed Sami Meah I. L. R. 14 Cal. 484 (1877) is quoted, in which the learned Judge observed:-" I think it is an inherent right in the Court itself to prevent its proceedings being made any cause of any injustice or oppression to any one and that therefore it seems to me that that inherent right does exist, and that the Court has power under the inherent right to order restitution of the thing which has been improperly taken, and as apart of that power it must have the right and the power to order restitution of every thing which has been improperly taken. If they have that power, they have the power not only to order restitution of the property itself, but restitution of any proceeds which have been improperly taken during the time it was in possession of the person who was not entitled to it." In this judgment of Chief Justice Petheram's it is laid down that "a Court has an inherent power to order the restitution of every thing that has been improperly taken" in execution of its decree. There is no distinction drawn between things that should have been taken and things which should not have been taken in execution of the decree, and we consider that to make any such distinction would be to permit the proceedings of the Court being made "a cause of injustice or oppression," which according to Chief Justice Petheram it is the duty of a Court to prevent being done. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs which we assess at 2 gold mohurs.