1. Restitution under S. 144 of the Civil P.C. is only permissible if the loss of property is a direct consequence of the decree. 2. Adjustment of a decree by way of sale of property must be certified as required by O. 21, R. 2 of the Civil P.C. for the Executing Court to recognize the same.

DESHPANDE, J. :- This Letters Patent appeal by the original decree-holders raises some question of importance as to the interpretation of S. 144 of the Civil P. C. and O. 21, R. 2 thereof. In Special Civil Suit No. 103 of 1946 the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur, passed a decree on 29-2-1960 against Suryakant, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, and several other defendants. The decree was for payment of Rs. 74,449-13-8 with 6 percent interest as also for possession of the property by partition. The defendants were made liable for payment for the satisfaction of the said decree, jointly and severally. This decree has been modified by this Court on 9-10-1967 in First Appeal No. 278 of 1960. As a result thereof the defendant ceased to be liable to pay any money to the plaintiff. We are informed at the Bar that an appeal against the judgment of this Court dated 9-10-1967 is still pending in the Supreme Court

2. In the meanwhile, the decree-holder started execution proceedings against the judgment-debtors. Properties of some judgment-debtors appear to have been attached in an attempt to put the same to sale. No process, however, appears to have been issued against Suryakant for any relief whatsoever in the said execution proceedings till, at any rate, 28th Oct., 1962. On that date Suryakant executed a registered sale-deed of his house property for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. Recital in the sale-deed indicates that the sale consideration was not paid in cash but was agreed to be adjusted towards the monetary liability under the decree in Suit No. 103 of 1946. Suryakant also claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- in cash in addition towards the decretal dues, at the time when the said sale-deed was executed.

3. After the judgment of this High Court on 9-10-1967, Suryakant filed an application under S. 144 of the Civil P.C. being Miscellaneous Application No. 244 of 1970 giving rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal. He prayed for return of his house to him, which he had sold earlier on 20-10-1962 for satisfaction of the part of the decretal dues and of Rs. 2,500 paid by him. In the alternative he also sought permission of the Court to convert the said application into a suit which was permissible under S. 47 (2) of the Civil P. C., as it then stood.

4. Notice of this application appears to have been given to the decree-holders including of his prayer to permit this application to be converted into a suit. The decree-holder, however, did not choose to remain present at this preliminary stage. At a later stage he appeared and filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that such an application was not maintainable under S. 144 of the Civil P. C. It is also pleaded that the sale of the property by the applicant Suryakant was a part of the settlement reached between him and the decree-holder under which he was exempted from the liability under the decree any further.

5. By his order dated 20th June, 1974, the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur, directed the decree-holder to deliver possession of the property, i.e. house of the applicant judgment-debtor. The learned Judge further held that the alleged payment of Rs. 2,500/- by the applicant to the decree-holder was not proved. The applicant also was held entitled to reconveyance as also cash amount of Rupees 2,200/- towards the mesne profits and further compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month till the delivery of possession by the decree-holder to him.

6. Decree-holder challenged the validity of this order in First Appeal No. 741 of 1974. The same, however, was summarily dismissed on 28th Nov., 1974. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against this summary dismissal.

7. Mr. J. R. Lalit, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, contends that the sale-deed cannot be said to have been executed by the applicant in favour of the decree-holder in execution of the decree to warrant restitution under S. 144 of the C