This appeal is against the order dated 8.12.83 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati in Misc. Appeal No.44 of 82. By the said order, the appeal was dismissed an the order of restoration passed under section 144 CPC by the learned Munsiff was affirmed. 2. The facts are as follows : Originally Smti Silikha filed a suit against the present respond­ent for declaration of her right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession. An ex parte decree was obtained which was put into execution and Smti Silikha got possession of the suit land. Respondent herein who was impleaded as the sole defendant in the original suit being Title Suit No. 5/81 (43/72) got the ex parte decree set aside by the learned Munsiff, Gauhati and thereafter filed a petition under section 144 CPC for restoration of possession, which was allowed. In the appeal against this order, the learned lower appellate Court stayed the order of restoration on the ground that such order would be implemented only after the suit was finally decided. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. Again, the present respondent filed another petition under section 144, CPC before the learned Munsiff No.2, Gauhati for restoration of possession and by order dated 30.8.82 the said petition was allowed. As stated above, the appeal was dismissed and the above order of the learned Munsiff was upheld. Hence, the present petition. 3. It may be stated herein that while the main suit was pro­ceeding appellant Nos.2 to 5 in this appeal purchased the suit land from Smti Silikha and on their prayer they were impleaded as plaintiffs in the main suit and Smti Silikha as proforma defendant No.7. 4. I have heard Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. On perusal of the order of the learned Munsiff, I find that the learned Court held, inter alia, that the sale of the suit land during the pendency of the suit was illegal and as such possession of the plaintiffs would amount to "illegal trespass under section 144 CPC" and previous status quo must be maintained. On this ground petition was allowed. 6. From the order of the learned lower appellate Court I find that according to learned Court, respondent fulfilled all the three conditions required under section 144 CPC. On this ground petition was allowed. 6. From the order of the learned lower appellate Court I find that according to learned Court, respondent fulfilled all the three conditions required under section 144 CPC. The learned Court before whom the judgment of the trial Court in the main suit was placed was of the opinion that Smti Silikha was in possession of the land at the time of filing of the suit and as the respondent-defendant was dispossessed, the learned Munsiff rightly allowed the prayer for restoration. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the main judgment and more particularly decision of the learned trial Court in respect of Issues Nos. 5 and 7. Issue No.5 was whether the defendant had acquired right, title and interest over the suit land and whether the defendant was protected under section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act. While considering this issue the learned trial Court was of the opinion that the defendant-respondent was a trespasser and he was not protected under (he provision of section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act and accordingly this issue was decided against the defendant. 8. Toe decision of the learned trial Court regarding Issue No. 7 runs as follows : "Issue No.7 :-In the light of decision of the foregoing issues I hold that neither the plaintiffs nor the principal defendant is entitled to any relief in this suit. As per my finding the title right of the suit land still devolves on the proforma defendant No.7 who is sole heir of late Gharsua wife of late Gera although possession is in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, I dismiss t .is suit on contest. But put all the parties to bear their own costs." I do not want to make any observation regarding the final decision of the Learned trial Court as this is not relevant for present purpose. 9. From the above judgment the following findings follow : (i) the defendant-respondent did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land and not entitled to protection under section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act; (ii) the defendant No.7 i.e. Smti Silikha acquired right, title and interest over the suit land being the sole heir of late Gharsua wife of late Gera; (iii) the other plaintiffs i. e. the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5, who purch­ased the land during the pendency of the suit from defendant No.7, were in possession of the land. 10. Main thrust of the contention of Mr. Goswami is that the prayer for restoration if allowed would amount to giving possession of the land to a trespasser which will not be in the interest of justice. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of the Privy Council in S. N. Banerjee and another vs. Kushwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd (in Liquidation) and another, AIR 1941 PC 128. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the defendant-respondent is not a trespasser as his plea was that he purchased the land from the mother and elder brother of Smii Silikha. 11. Mr. Deka, learned counsel has further urged that as the other plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title or interest over the suit land in view of the judgment of the learned trial Court they cannot retain possession and as such the defendant, who was all along in possession prior to his dispossession, is entitled to get restoration as he was dispossessed in execution of the ex parte decree which was set aside. According to Mr. Deka it may be that subsequently the defendant may not be entitled to retain poss­ession, but in view of the provision of section 144 CPC he is entitled to got restoration of possession of the land in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above. 12. From t.ie judgment of tiie learned trial Court it follows that defendant-respondent was a trespasser prior to filing of the suit. In S. N. Baaerjee (supra) it has beea laid down that "where a person who has been dispossessed is found fo be a trespasser and the person in subsequent possession are lawfully in possession, it is not necessary for the ends of justice that the trespassers should be restored to possess­ion. This ratio was laid down vis-a-vis section 151 and 144 CPC. 14. In the case in hand the learned trial Court clearly held that Smti Silikha who originally filed the suit as plaintiff and who was impleaded subsequently as defendant No. 7 was the owner of the land. This ratio was laid down vis-a-vis section 151 and 144 CPC. 14. In the case in hand the learned trial Court clearly held that Smti Silikha who originally filed the suit as plaintiff and who was impleaded subsequently as defendant No. 7 was the owner of the land. She could not be found to be in possession of the land as admittedly she sold the land to other appellants-plaintiffs, bo Smti Silikha by 'virtue of her title has a right of possession of the land by herself or through aoy other p rson. That being the position if she is now dispossessed it will cause injury to her inas-', much as, defendant-respondent who was lound to be a trespasser will get possession of the land. It is the duty of the Court to take care that act of Court does not cause injury to any litigant. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if the defendant-respondent are is put in possession with the help of section 144 CPC it will cause injustice and hence this Court cannot pass any such order. 15. Mr. Deka, has urged that as the defendant-respondent was dispossessed through execution of an ex parte which was subsequently set aside, he is entitled to get possession now and he may be dispossess­ed through Court later on if it is found that he was int entitled to retain such possession. In my opinion this will lead to multifariousness of suits. On this ground also restoration cannot be ordered. 16. For what has been stated above, I find merit in the present aopeal and accordingly it is alllowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 8.12.83 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 82 by the Assistant District Judge No.2, Gauhati. Parties to bear their own costs.