JUDGMENT In this petition, the petitioner-tenant seeks the relief pf the restoration of possession obtained from him by respondent No.1 Mohanbabu Rathore-under an ex-parte decree, which has been later on set aside by the trial Court and the order was co firmed by the appellate Court and by this Court as well. It is contended that after the ex-parte decree was set aside, the possession obtained by the decree-holder from the petitioner-tenant deserved restitution and could not he retained by respondent No. 1. The petitioner in that regard had filed an application in the Court below under section 144 C.P.C. The Court below rejected the application on the ground that the provisions of section 144 were not applicable and that the possession could not be restored to the petitioner. Section 144 C.P.C. may be reproduced with profit. "144. Application for restitution: -- (1) Where and in so far 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 well, so far as may be, place the parties in the position which they would have 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-section (1), the expression ''Court which passed the decree or order" shall be deemed to include. Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression ''Court which passed the decree or order" shall be deemed to include. (a) where the decree on 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-section (1)" The possession obtained by the party under the ex-parte decree would deserve the restitution to the original-holder of the possession when the ex-parte decree is set aside. Respondent No.1 had succeeded in obtaining the possession of the disputed shop only under the ex-parte decree. The learned trial Court having found that the service of the notice of the suit was not effected properly on the petitioner, proceeded to set aside the decree. The order of the Court below was upheld by the appellate Court and the writ petition preferred against those orders before this Court was also dismissed in limine. Once the decree under which the possession was obtained was set aside and did not survive, the original holder of the possession would be entitled to take back the possession under section 144 C.P.C. The approach adopted by the Court below could not be said to be legal and the orders cannot be allowed to be sustained. This petition, therefore, succeeds. The petitioner shall be put back in possession of the disputed shop and would also be entitled to the costs of the petition. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/- if certified.