G. B. PATTANAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting the application of the appellant who is defendant No. 2 in the suit for restitution of the property in question. ( 2 ) THE short facts are that respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 14 of 1974 in the court of the Subordinate Judge for specific performance of contract of sale and for direction that defendant no. 1 should execute and register the sale deed pursuant to the agreement between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 dt. 4-4-1974, In the said suit a prayer had also been made for a declaration that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was collusive, sham and no title passed on to defendant No. 2 on account of the said invalid sale deed. After filing of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application for temporary injunction against defendant No. 2 with the prayer that defendant No. 2 be restrained from entering upon the suit premises. The trial court by order dt. 25-1-1975 issued an order of injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from entering into the premises in question. Notwithstanding the said restraint order, it was alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 trespassed upon a portion of the suit premises and, therefore, the plaintiff filed an application for taking suitable action against the said defendant No. 2 for having violated the order of injunction passed by the trial court. This application was allowed and the court directed defendant No. 2 to give possession of the premises to the plaintiff. Defect No. 2 had carried an appeal against the said order to this Court is Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 1976. In the meantime, plaintiff's suit was also decreed ex parte on 12-8-1976. Defendant No. 2 filed an application under O. 9, R. 13, C. P. C. , for setting aside the ex parte decree and the said application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 35 of 1976 was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, defendant No. 2 filed an appeal in this court being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 293 of 1977. The earlier appeal against the direction of the Subordinate Judge to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff (Misc. Case No. 35 of 1976 was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, defendant No. 2 filed an appeal in this court being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 293 of 1977. The earlier appeal against the direction of the Subordinate Judge to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff (Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1976) was disposed of on 10-8-1977 by a consent order wherein defendant No. 2 agreed to deliver possession of the suit house to the plaintiff and such direction being subject to the result of the final appeal in the main suit. The Miscellaneous Appeal of defendant No. 2 against the ex parte decree (Misc. Appeal No. 293 of 1977) was allowed and ex parte decree was set aside by order dt. 25-4-1978. After setting aside of the ex parte decree, the suit in the meantime has been re-disposed of and the trial court has dismissed the suit by judgement dt. 31-1-1979 against which the plaintiff has filed First Appeal No. 97 of 1979 which is pending in this Court. Defendant No. 2 has also filed a cross-appeal since it has been found by the learned trial judge that the sale executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 on 16-4-1974 is invalid. After disposal of the suit, the defendant No. 2 filed the application under Ss. 144 and 151 of the C. P. C. before the learned trial judge praying for restitution of the property. The Subordinate Judge having rejected the said application, defendant No. 2 has preferred the present appeal. ( 3 ) THE short question for consideration in this appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances, as narrated earlier, S. 144 of the Civil P. C. has any application at all or not. S. 144 of the C. P. C. reads as follows :-"144. ( 3 ) THE short question for consideration in this appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances, as narrated earlier, S. 144 of the Civil P. C. has any application at all or not. S. 144 of the C. P. C. reads as follows :-"144. Application for restitution : (i) Where and insofar as a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose, the court which passed the decree or order shall, on the application of any party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the position which they would nave occupied but for such decree or order or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified; and for this purpose, the court may make any orders, including orders for the refund of costs and for the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits, which are properly consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree or order. Explanation.- For the purposes of Sub-Sec. (1), the expression 'court which passed the decree or order' shall be deemed to include,- (a) where the decree or order has been varied or reversed in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the court of first instance; (b) where the decree or order has been set aside by a separate suit, the court of first instance which passed such decree or order; (c) where the court of first instance has ceased to exist or has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute it the court which, if the suit wherein the decree or order was passed were instituted at the time of making the application for restitution under this Section, would have jurisdiction to try such suit. (2) No suit shall be instituted for the purpose of obtaining any restitution or other relief which could be obtained by application under Sub-Sec. (1 ). (2) No suit shall be instituted for the purpose of obtaining any restitution or other relief which could be obtained by application under Sub-Sec. (1 ). "the doctrine of restitution contained in the aforesaid provision would apply only when a judgement is reversed and the person who had been benefited by the reversed judgement has an obligation to make restitution to the other party for what he had lost by virtue of the erroneous judgement and in such a case, the Court has the duty to enforce that obligation. The law on the subject has been fully discussed in the case of Vinayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi, AIR 1966 SC 948 to the effect :-". . . . . . . THE principle of the doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a decree, the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who received the benefit of the erroneous decree to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost. This obligation arises automatically on the reversal or modification of the decree and necessarily carries with it the right to restitution of all that has been done under the erroneous decree; and the court in making restitution is bound to restore the parties, so far as they can be restored, to the same position they were in at the time when the Court by its erroneous action had displaced them from. . . . . . . . . . . . . . "this decision was followed by this court in the case of Banchhanidhi Das v. Bhanu Sahuani, AIR 1974 Orissa, 148, and this court held that the following conditions must be fulfilled for application of the principles of restitution :- (I) There must be an erroneous judgement; (II) Benefit of that erroneous judgement must have been received by a party to the record; (III) The party claiming restitution must show that as a consequence of the error in the judgement or decree; a party received the benefit; and (IV) The erroneous judgement was reversed in appeal. When the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined to find out whether the aforesaid four pre-conditions have been satisfied or not, the answer would be in the negative. When the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined to find out whether the aforesaid four pre-conditions have been satisfied or not, the answer would be in the negative. The suit in the present case was for specific performance of contract as against defendant No. 1 and for a declaration that the alleged sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 is illegal and inoperative. By virtue of the ex parte decree which the plaintiff had obtained and which in the meantime has been reversed, the plaintiff did not obtain the benefit of being in possession of the suit premises. Defendant No. 2 did not lose possession of the premises because of the said erroneous judgement and in addition to all this even the judgement by which the earlier judgement has been reversed has declared that the sale in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 is invalid. In this view of the matter, the provisions of S. 144 of the C. P. C. have no application and the Subordinate Judge has rightly rejected the application filed by the appellant under S. 144 of the C. P. C. I, therefore, do not find any merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .