Restitution under civil procedure requires a consequential reversal or variation; a mere interest reduction is insufficient.

Restitution under Section 144 CPC is available only where a decree or order has been varied or reversed and the claimed benefit flows consequentially from that change. A mere reduction in the rate of interest, without reversal of the substantive decree for refund of consideration money, is not enough. The text emphasises that the applicant must show the prejudice complained of arose from the original erroneous terms and that the impugned consequence would not have occurred but for those terms. As the appellate decree only reduced interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent and left the refund decree intact, restitution was not legally justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable where the appellate decree only reduced the rate of interest and did not otherwise reverse the decree for refund of consideration money.

Analysis: Restitution under Section 144 is available only when the decree or order has been varied or reversed and the applicant is entitled to a benefit arising from that variation or reversal. The relief must also be properly consequential on the change in the decree. A mere technical variation does not by itself justify restitution unless the party seeking it shows that the prejudice suffered was the result of the original erroneous terms of the decree and that, but for those terms, the impugned consequence would not have occurred. Since the appellate court had only reduced interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent, the decree for refund of the consideration amount itself remained intact, and the sale in execution was not shown to be a consequence of the limited variation.

Conclusion: Restitution was not legally justified, and the orders allowing restitution could not be sustained.

---