JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Cuttack affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpore. The case arose out of a proceeding in execution under sec. 583, C.P.C. The Appellant obtained delivery of possession in execution of a decree in his favour. The decree was afterwards set aside by the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces. An application was made by two persons Brojo Nath, who is one of the Respondent before us, and Kanai Lal for restitution under sec. 583 of the Code. Kanai Lal, it appears from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, applied for delivery of possession and Brojo Nath asked for refund of a certain sum of money. Brojo Nath's application was allowed and Kanai Lal's application was refused on the ground that he was not himself in possession of the land at the time the Appellant executed his decree. The present application was made by Brojo Nath and one Pitabash for restitution of possession. The decree of the Original Court was against both of them and, though Pitabash was not a party to the appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, the decree was in his favour as well as in favour of Brojo Nath and the other Defendants inasmuch as the Judicial Commissioner set aside the decree for possession passed by lower Court. Pitabash was, therefore, entitled to restitution of the property of which he was dispossessed by the execution of the decree appealed from. Sec 583 of the Code, in our opinion, covers a case like this. It is not necessary that a person asking for restitution should be a party to the appeal, if the appeal is in effect and substance In favour of such a party. He is entitled to the benefits arising out of the decree in appeal and the Court may direct restitution of the property in execution. 2. Various other objections were raised In the lower Courts against the application for restitution made by Brojo Nath and Pitabash, the present Respondents. They were dealt with by the lower Appellate Court and, in our opinion, they were correctly dealt with. 3. The first point taken before us is that Brojo Nath was not entitled to restitution inasmuch as his application for the very same property was once rejected. But it appears that Brojo Nath did not ask for re-delivery of possession. They were dealt with by the lower Appellate Court and, in our opinion, they were correctly dealt with. 3. The first point taken before us is that Brojo Nath was not entitled to restitution inasmuch as his application for the very same property was once rejected. But it appears that Brojo Nath did not ask for re-delivery of possession. That answers the first argument of the Appellant. 4. The second argument before us is that possession has been delivered of the entire property which was actually not in possession of Brojo Nath and Pitabash. But the first Court directed delivery of possession of certain properties mentioned in the application for execution except land No. 349. The lower Appellate Court affirmed that finding. It is immaterial so far as the Appellant is concerned, to whom the plots are given back. We find that the delivery of possession of the property was directed by the first Court and the order of the first Court was merely affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 5. The third point taken before us is that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of the usufructuary mortgage in his favour and he could resist the delivery of possession on his rights acquired under the usufructuary mortgage. The deli-very of possession, in our opinion, would take effect irrespective of the usufructuary mortgage and the parties to the litigation must be placed in the same position as they were in irrespective of any other right accruing to any of the parties during the litigation. We do not think that the question of usufructuary mortgage arises in this case. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal with costs, two gold mohurs.