ORDER : (LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal in CMA.No.20 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri Vijay B.Paropkari, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Smt Sarampally Mrudula, learned counsel for respondents. 3. The revision petitioners are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. The facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are that the plaintiffs filed suit in OS.No.107 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri for perpetual injunction in respect of open Plot bearing No.13 admeasuring 593 square yards in Sy.Nos.157 to 162, 175, 176 & 177/A situated at Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. In the said suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application in I.A.No.379 of 2019 for temporary injunction and initially, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 27.04.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred CMA.No.20 of 2023 on the file II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal along with an application vide IA.No.366 of 2023 seeking suspension of order dated 27.04.2023 passed in IA.No.379 of 2019. The trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 19.06.2023. 4.1. Further, the plaintiffs also filed an application in I.A.No.886 of 2019 under Section 144 CPC for restitution of possession of the suit schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was averred that a criminal case in Crime No.148 of 2019 was registered against plaintiff No.2 under Section 420 IPC on 07.03.2019, he was arrested and was in judicial custody. In the meanwhile, the defendants demolished the compound wall constructed by the plaintiffs, raised new compound wall, also erected a gate and locked the same. The trial Court, after due enquiry, vide order dated 27.04.2023 ordered for restitution of possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. In the meanwhile, the defendants demolished the compound wall constructed by the plaintiffs, raised new compound wall, also erected a gate and locked the same. The trial Court, after due enquiry, vide order dated 27.04.2023 ordered for restitution of possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 27.04.2023, in IA.No.886 of 2019, the defendants preferred revision in CRP.No.1599 of 2023 and a learned single Judge of this Court heard CRP.Nos.1599 and 1809 of 2023 together and, without going into merits of the case, disposed of the said cases, vide common order dated 12.02.2024, directing the first Appellate Court to dispose of CMA.No.20 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and until such time, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Pursuant to the orders, dated 12.02.2024, the first Appellate Court, on consideration of the material placed on record, dismissed CMA.No.20 of 2023 vide order, dated 05.06.2024, thereby, confirming the order dated 27.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.379 of 2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants submitted that plaintiff No.2 in the affidavit filed in support of application in IA.No.886 of 2019, filed for restitution of possession of the suit schedule property, has categorically admitted that he lost possession on 07.03.2019. Learned counsel further submitted that though IA.No.886 of 2019 was allowed, nothing is placed on record to show that the orders were executed and plaintiff No.2 was inducted into possession, therefore in the absence of any material evidencing implementation of orders in IA.No.886 of 2019, the same remained on paper and plaintiff No.2 was never inducted into possession. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court ought to have seen that Section 144 CPC has no application to the interlocutory proceedings and therefore, both the Courts ought not to have invoked Section 144 CPC while passing orders in IA.No.886 of 2019 and ultimately, learned counsel prayed to allow this Civil Revision Petition. 6. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that all the grounds raised in this Revision Petition have already been raised by the revision petitioners herein in CRP.No.1599 of 2023 and the said Revision Petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 12.02.2024; that a Review Petition in IA.No.3 of 2024 is also filed to review the order passed in CRP.No.1599 of 2023 and the same is pending and therefore, the revision petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same grounds/issues in the present Revision Petition. She further submitted that the plaintiffs are able to prove their title and possession over the suit schedule property, whereas the defendants i.e., the revision petitioners failed to prove their title and possession over the suit schedule property and both the Courts i.e., the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have concurrently held that defendants were not able to prove prima facie title and possession and therefore, granted interim injunction. Learned counsel finally contended that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the first Appellate Court and prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition as the same is devoid of merits. 7. Apropos the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, now the point for consideration is whether the revision petitioners/defendants have made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court. 8. In the order dated 27.04.2023 passed in IA.No.379 of 2019, the trial Court has categorically observed that in the suit filed for injunction, the plaintiff has prima facie proved his possession over the suit schedule property by filing valid documents in the form of Exs.P-1 to P-25, whereas the defendants have not filed any document to show their possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court further observed that all the documents relied upon by the respondents relate to Plot in Sy.Nos.175 and 176, but not the petition schedule property situated in Sy.Nos.157 to 162, 175, 176 and 177A. The trial Court has also observed that when plaintiff No.2 was in judicial remand, the defendants constructed compound wall and erected a gate to it and the said fact was not disputed by the defendants. The trial Court has also observed that when plaintiff No.2 was in judicial remand, the defendants constructed compound wall and erected a gate to it and the said fact was not disputed by the defendants. The trial Court also observed that as per the survey report placed on record by the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.177, whereas the defendants are claiming their land in Sy.Nso.175 and 176 and that to rebut the contention of plaintiff No.2, the defendants have not produced any cogent, proper and convincing material before the Court. 9. Perusal of record would disclose that plaintiff No.2 is claiming title over the suit schedule property vide sale deed bearing No.226/1969 and also claiming to be in possession of open Plot bearing No.13 admeasuring 593 square yards in Sy.Nos.157 to 162, 175, 176 & 177/A situated at Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, whereas the defendants are claiming title basing on registered Gift Settlement deed dated 27.08.2015. 10. However, the first Appellate Court had made specific observations that in the Gift Settlement Deed, which is marked as Ex.R-1, plot number is not mentioned and further, extent is also different with that of the suit schedule property and even the boundaries shown in Ex.R-1 are different and not tallying with that of the suit schedule property. The first Appellate Court further observed that Exs.R-1 to R-8 filed by the defendants does not show their possession over the suit schedule property and that defendants did not file any other document or material to show as to how they got title and possession over the suit schedule property. 11. On the other hand, plaintiff No.2 has placed on record Exs.P-1 to P-25 to substantiate his title and possession over the suit schedule property, which also includes Ex.P-23 which is extract of survey and demarcation report dated 27.02.2020 given by Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal. 12. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the trial Court while allowing IA.No.886 of 2019 has considered all the contentions raised by both the parties and has come to categorical conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for restitution of possession and accordingly, granted interim order in their favour, which would suffice that prima facie title and possession of respondents/plaintiffs is established and that the revision petitioners/defendants failed to substantiate their claim and possession over the suit schedule property. It is also relevant to note that order passed in IA.No.886 of 2019 directing restitution of possession from defendants to the plaintiffs is subsisting and the contention of revision petitioners/defendants in this regard is untenable. 13. Insofar as contention of the revision petitioners that Section 144 CPC has no application to interlocutory applications, it is apposite to extract the said Section for better appreciation, which is as hereunder:- “Application for restitution 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.” 14. From a reading of Section 144 CPC, it is manifest that the Court which passes a decree or order is empowered to entertain and pass orders in an application filed by a party who is entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise. 15. In the instant case, the trial Court initially granted ad interim injunction in favour of plaintiffs, however, subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 was dispossessed, therefore, he filed an application vide IA.No.886 of 2019 for restitution of his possession and the trial Court has passed an order for restitution of possession of plaintiff No.2. In the light of the above, the contention of the revision petitioners/defendants that Section 144 CPC has no application to interlocutory applications is incorrect and untenable in view of the language employed in the said Section, whereunder the court which passes a decree or order is empowered to entertain an application for restitution or otherwise. In the light of the above, the contention of the revision petitioners/defendants that Section 144 CPC has no application to interlocutory applications is incorrect and untenable in view of the language employed in the said Section, whereunder the court which passes a decree or order is empowered to entertain an application for restitution or otherwise. The word ‘order’ employed in Section 144 CPC includes order passed in interlocutory applications as well, as there is no specific embargo on the trial Court to exercise the power under Section 144 CPC even while entertaining the applications filed in respect of interlocutory orders. 16. Therefore, in the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order or non-consideration of any material placed on record by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. As such, this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. 18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.