JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This execution second appeal arises out of proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts in this case lie in a very short campass. A decree was obtained by the plaintiff-respondents No. 2 and 3 against the respondent No. 1. In execution of this decree the respondents No. 2 and 3 took possession of the property in dispute from the respondent No. 1 meanwhile respondent No. 1 had filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Court set aside the decree for ejectment. During the pendency of the appeal when the respondents No. 2 and 3 were in possession they transferred the property in favour of the appellant. After the decree for ejectment was set aside, respondent No. 1 applied for restitution under section 144 C.P.C. objections were filed by the respondents. The executing court as well as the lower appellate court dismissed the objections and the appeal respectively. 2. In view of the facts stated above, the decree in execution of which the possession of the property was taken over by the respondents No. 2 and 3 from the respondent No. 1 has been set aside by the High Court and as such the respondent No. 1 is entitled to the restitution as possession was taken over from him in pursuance of the decree which was later on set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, urged that a liberal interpretation should be given to Section 144 C.P.C. as in the instant case the appellant was bona fide purchaser and the respondent was occupying another property since the execution of the decree and as such no restitution can be granted in the instant case. Learned counsel particular has relied on a decision of this court in Minto Lal v. Naraindas, 1966 A.L.J. 510 ; the paragraph relied on reads as follows : "These authorities lead to the position that in proceedings for restitution the court has to consider the equities arising in the case and the demand for justice that the rights of both the rival parties make and to pass such an order as will do justice to both the parties. The status quo ante is not to be achieved blindly. Such relief has to be given as is properly consequential on the reversal or variation of the decree of order. The status quo ante is not to be achieved blindly. Such relief has to be given as is properly consequential on the reversal or variation of the decree of order. To find the appropriate relief the Court has to see that the party applying for restitution is entitled to a benefit under the reversing decree and that such benefit has not been extinguished or mitigated by reason of supervening events which have either changed the subject-matter of the benefit or its character and incidents." 4. The principle laid own in the above case is that the executing court has to see whether the party applying for restitution is entitled to a benefit under the reversing decree and that such benefit has not been extinguished or mitigated by reason of supervening events which have either changed the subject matter of the benefit or its character and incidents. 5. In my opinion, this observation relates to events in regard to the nature of the decree and as such a discretion has been given to the executing court to grant restitution considering the events which might have affected the benefit given to the decree-holder by the decree. 6. In the instant case, no such events have taken place which have changed either the subject matter of the benefit or its character and incidents. The respondent No. 1 was ejected from the house by virtue of the decree passed by the lower appellate court. The said decree was set aside by the High Court and as such, the respondent No. 1 was entitled to restitution. After a person is evicted he is bound to stay at some place or the other. The mere fact that the respondent No. 1 is staying at some other place does not deprive him of his right which has accrued to him by reversal of the decree by the High Court. In the facts of the present case, the principle laid down in the case of Minto Lal (Supra) does cot apply. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.