JUDGMENT Plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and issuance of permanent preventive injunction has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court in reversal of the decree of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has further directed possession over the suit property being restored to the defendant along with compensation in an amount of Rs. 200/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. Aggrieved plaintiff has come up in second appeal. This Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following two substantial questions of law:- "(A) Whether in a suit for declaration and injunction, the Court can pass a decree for possession against the plaintiff without there being any cross suit or counter-claim by the defendants? (B) Whether the Court of appeal while reversing the decree of permanent injunction can award compensatory costs on the ground that temporary injunction was obtained on false grounds when no such prayer was made in the trial Court?" Question No. 1 :-- Not only the plaintiff's suit has been held liable to be dismissed, the lower appellate Court has also arrived at a finding that the plaintiff/appellant who was not in possession of the suit property on the date of the filing of the suit, had also succeeded in securing a temporary injunction from the trial Court by stating false facts and thereby managed in entering into possession over the suit property in the garb of the interim injunction order. Having formed that opinion, the lower appellate Court while dismissing the suit, has directed the plaintiff to restore possession over the suit property to the defendants. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of a cross suit or counter-claim preferred by the defendants, order for restoration of possession to the defendants could not have been passed. It is well settled that no person shall suffer by a wrong order of the Court. The lower appellate Court has formed an unhesitating opinion that the plaintiff/appellant did not deserve any interim injunction order being passed in his favour as he was certainly not in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. It is the wrong injunction order of the trial Court which became instrumental in plaintiff depriving the defendants of their possession over the suit property. It is the wrong injunction order of the trial Court which became instrumental in plaintiff depriving the defendants of their possession over the suit property. When the Court superseded that interim injunction order it was not only empowered but was duty-bound to undo the wrong done under its order which had ceased to exist. No exception can be taken to the relief allowed by the Court below to the defendants. Question No.2. :-- The lower appellate Court has allowed compensation to the defendants for the plaintiff having obtained injunction on insufficient grounds. That was done u/s. 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 95 contemplates an application being made for exercise of power thereunder and then compensation being awarded after hearing the parties. Rule 372 (6) of M.P. Civil Court Rules and Orders provides for such an application being registered as a Miscellaneous civil case. All this was not done. The award of compensation was, therefore, without jurisdiction. The appeal is partly allowed. So much part of the lower appellate Court's decree as directs award of compensation of Rs. 200/- by the plaintiff to the defendants is set aside. Rest of the decree of the lower appellate Court is maintained. In the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant is directed to pay the costs of the respondents in this appeal. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified.