JUDGMENT B.S. Sharma, Member - This is a revision against the order of Additional Commissioner, Lucknow passed on 25.2.77 in appeal no. 180 of 1975-76 confirming the order dated 10.2.76 of the S.D.O. Unnao rejecting restoration application in case no. 3. 2. The learned counsel for the revisionist was present, but neither the respondent nor his counsel was present on the date of final hearing i.e. 2-4-82 despite due notice. The revision was therefore, heard ex parte. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that a suit under section 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed against the revisionist-defendant and this suit was decreed ex-parte by the trial court vide its order dated 11.1.68. The plaintiff-respondents obtained possession of the land in suit on 10.6.68 in execution of the decree of the trial court which was later on set aside vide the appellate plaintiff-respondents are continuing court's order dated 28.9.68. the in possession illegally and thus the revisionists-defendants who were process of court is being abused, admittedly in possession of the land The position now is that while the in suit prior to its possession was delivered to the plaintiff-respondents in pursuance of the decree of the trial court gave restitution application for delivery of possession of that land to them. This application is dated 2.4.75. It was considered by the trial court who vide its detailed order dated 10.2.76 rejected it as time-barred on the ground that it was an application under section 144 C.P.C. and as held by the Supreme Court in a case reported in A.I.R. 1965 page 1477 it had to be treated as an application for execution of a decree and as such the period of limitation tor filing of this application was one year from the date of final decree as provided under Item 53 of Appendix III under Rule 338 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The revisionist preferred a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who agreeing with the learned trial court dismissed the revision vide its order dated 25.2.77. It is against this order that the present revision has been preferred before the Board. 4. The revisionist preferred a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who agreeing with the learned trial court dismissed the revision vide its order dated 25.2.77. It is against this order that the present revision has been preferred before the Board. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has conceded that the application for restitution was an application for execution of the decree in pursuance of the court's order dated 28.9.68 by which the earlier decree passed by the trial court was set aside, He has also conceded that the application for restitution was moved after one year of the date of decree. How ever, he has argued that the plaintiff's own case was that he was not in possession of the land in suit and that the revisionist-defendant was in possession. The revisionist was however, deprived of his possession in pursuance of the trial court's order dated 11.1.68 and since this order was quashed later on the trial court itself should have restored the possession of land to the revisionist. This was not done with the result that the plaintiff-respondents' suit for ejectment is still under consideration but he has already been put in possession of the land in suit without final decision of that suit. The learned counsel has pleaded that it is a fit case in which the Board should exercise its inherent powers under section 151 C.P.C. to restore possession of the land in question in favour of the revisionist. 5. I have given due consideration to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the facts are clear, the restitution application filed by the revisionist before the trial court is dated 2.4.75. This application was moved for restitution of possession of the land in pursuance of the court's order dated 28.9.68 and thus the application was filed after a lapse of more than six years of the order of the court on the basis of which the restitution of land was claimed. A perusal of the provisions of Section 144 C.P.C. would show that the court concerned has to act on the application of a party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution. This section does not cast duty on the court to move on its own. It however, enjoins upon the court to act in favour of the person claiming restitution if any application is filed by that person. This section does not cast duty on the court to move on its own. It however, enjoins upon the court to act in favour of the person claiming restitution if any application is filed by that person. In this case the application has been filed much after the prescribed period of one year had elapsed the learned trial court's order shows that no justification or reasons for delay in filing this application were pressed before it; now the question is whether the Board should exercise its inherent powers u\Sec. 151 C.P.C. to condone the delay for the benefit of the revisionist. No doubt, Section 151 C.P.C. confers inherent powers on the civil courts but these powers have to be exercised in the interest of justice. Inherent powers cannot be exercised in favour of a party which does not pursue the remedy provided by law in time. These powers also not to be exercised to extend the period of limitation prescribed by law nor they can be exercised to over-ride or circumvent the express provisions of law. These views have been consistently held by the Hon'ble High Courts (Reference Kunj Bihari v. Chanchal Das, A.I.R. 1966 Orissa 24 and Mohd. Ji Rabbani v. B.H. Sabba, A.I.R. 1973 Patna 358. In this particular case the revisionist had already failed to avail of the benefit of restoration of possession of land in suit in his favour within the long period of one year available to him under the relevant provisions of law as mentioned earlier. His failure to avail of the benefit according to law cannot be condoned by his court in exercise of its inherent powers u/Sec. 151, C.P.C. in view of the consistent opinions expressed by the Hon'ble High Courts. 6. In view of the above, the prayer made by the revisionist cannot be accepted by this court. In the result the revision must fail. 7. The revision is hereby dismissed.