Judgment This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2014 in W.P.No.32389 of 2012. In the writ petition the petitioner appellant prays for the following relief: to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the societies and its members from the lands in an extent of Ac.99.00 in Sy.Nos.32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 situated at Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere or in any manner dispossess the societies and its members from their respective house sites to an extent of 100 square yards each. It appears from the records that there has been an interim order dated 15.10.2012 in the writ petition, whereby the respondents were directed not to interfere or in any manner dispossess the society and its members from their respective house sites to an extent of 100 square yards each. Therefore, it seems to us that almost final relief was granted while passing interim order and the same was continued. Meanwhile, it appears another writ petition being W.P.No.3647 of 2014 was filed by one Pragathi Social Organization, which claims to be a lessee in respect of a portion of the land in question in above writ petition and the lessor was the appellant society. In that writ petition an interim order was passed on 12.02.2014 directing the parties to maintain status quo. It appears, on 25.11.2014, the said writ petition came up for hearing and the learned lawyer appearing for the writ petitioner sought permission of the Court to withdraw the same. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed such prayer and dismissed the writ petition as being withdrawn. Consequently, interim order of status quo was vacated. On the same day i.e., 25.11.2014 the writ petition being W.P.No.32389 of 2012 in relation to which the present appeal has been preferred, was taken up for hearing. We notice admittedly that no one appeared for the writ petitioner. Consequently, interim order of status quo was vacated. On the same day i.e., 25.11.2014 the writ petition being W.P.No.32389 of 2012 in relation to which the present appeal has been preferred, was taken up for hearing. We notice admittedly that no one appeared for the writ petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge taking note of the statement and averment made in the implead petition as well as the documents filed in the said writ petition decided the matter in its absence, and passed the impugned order. According to us, decision on the subject presumably as restitution measure which is not mentioned in the writ petition, and brought by way of an impleadment application, should not have been rendered without hearing the writ petitioner by issuing separate notice. According to us, restitution measure can be taken under Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure, only when application in this regard is made. We therefore set out provision of Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure hereunder: 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 will, 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, - (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-section (1). The State Government did not file any counter. We think that only course of action in this situation would have been that the writ petition should have been dismissed then and there and interim order passed earlier should have been vacated for under the law no litigant can be compelled to maintain action nor the Court for its own can keep any matter pending at instance of adversary. If any mischief has been done by the writ petitioner taking advantage of the interim order passed by the Court as alleged before us should have been taken care of separately, provided the application for restitution is made in the Court. We do not find such course of action was taken. Therefore, that judgment is rendered following a procedure which is unknown to law and such decision cannot be supported. In this context, we require to know from the learned lawyer for the appellant-writ petitioner whether his client wants to maintain the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Sri A. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, upon instructions, submits that his client wants to maintain the writ petition. Therefore, we set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and restore the writ petition on his submission. The State respondent shall file counter affidavit within a week from date and affidavit in reply may be filed within two weeks from the date of filing of the counter affidavit. Therefore, we set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and restore the writ petition on his submission. The State respondent shall file counter affidavit within a week from date and affidavit in reply may be filed within two weeks from the date of filing of the counter affidavit. If no reply is filed within this time, the matter will be heard without the same. It is also open for the appellant - writ petitioner to file an affidavit in reply to deal with the allegations made in the vacate stay petition. This should be done within a week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the event this course of action is taken by the writ petitioner and appears at the time of hearing then full-fledged hearing shall take place. If it is not done, then the writ petition should be dismissed and if any application is made for taking any restitution measure for any mischief being done, taking advantage or misusing the interim order passed by the Court, can only be rectified by the Court and Court alone. It is settled position of law that if fraud is practiced upon the Court, it alone can remedy it. If fraud is practiced upon any person whether inside or outside Court that party has to complain before the appropriate forum. Therefore, we request the learned Single Judge to decide the matter as early as possible within a period of three months from the date of production of this order. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.