S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court), J.

1. This is an appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge in an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as “the CPC”), seeking restitution on behalf of the decree holder.

2. In this case, the respondent (hereafter referred to as “the decree holder”) instituted a suit against the appellant (“BSES”) for cancellation of a bill issued by the latter for the amount of Rs.48,83,927/-. During the course of that proceeding, the Civil Judge directed (in an order dated 03.08.1999) the decree holder to deposit Rs.6,00,000/- to the BSES as a precondition to restrain disconnection of electricity supply to his premises. Later, the plaint was returned by the Civil Judge, and the suit was filed before this Court, upon which time the same interim order was made by the Court, in an order dated 24.07.2006. Accordingly, the decree holder paid the amount to the BSES in two equal instalments of Rs.3 lakhs each on 12.08.1999 and 6.09.1999.

3. The suit was decreed on 16.03.2011. Thus, the impugned bill of Rs.48,83,927 was set aside, and the Rs.6 lakhs was ordered to be refunded within 8 weeks. To recover this amount, the decree-holder filed an execution petition. In those proceedings, it was contended by him that apart from the amount of Rs.6 lakhs, he was entitled to interest at 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its actual realization. Contrary to this, the BSES argued that the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2011 in the underlying matter was clear in that only payment of Rs.6 lakhs was to be made, and that the payment of interest over and above that amount would amount to an impermissible exercise of adding to the decree.

4. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, held that:

“…………………………in view of the principles of restitution as stated under Section 144 CPC, the decree holder is entitled to restitution. Judgment debtor has enjoyed the sum of rupees six lac, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court. Decree holder shall be entitled to interest from the date of deposit of the sum of Rs. 6 lac till its refund. In my opinion, the rate of interest @ 12 p.a. simple is appropriate and in order. Hence, the present application is allowed. It is ordered that the decree holder shall be entitled to interest @ 12% simple interest on the sum of Rs.6 lac w.e.f. the date of deposits i.e. 12.08.1999 for the sum of Rs.3 lac and 06.09.1999 for the balance of Rs.3 lac, till the date payment was received by the decree holder……………………..”

5. In reaching this conclusion, the learned Single Judge returned three findings: first, an application for restitution can be taken to be an application for execution of a decree; secondly, that restitution under Section 144 of the CPC comes into play from the date when the Court passed judgment, and thus the interim relief came to an end; finally, the Single Judge rejected BSES’s plea that since the decree holder himself sought an interim order from the Court (i.e. the decree holder himself had asked for it), the concept of restitution would not apply.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, learned counsel for BSES argued that the learned Single Judge, in effect, went behind the decree by ordering recovery of an amount greater than the trial court itself. It was argued that the impugned order contravenes the judgment and order dated 16.3.2011. Concurring with the learned Single Judge’s reasoning, thus, would be tantamount to allowing a modification of the decree through Section 144 CPC, which is impermissible and unknown to law.

7. Learned counsel also argued several other issues raised before the Single Judge: that the application of Section 144 CPC is limited to cases where due to the fault of defaulting party, the other party has suffered, and in that case the aggrieved party can seek restitution. It is argued that this is not the case here, as it was the decree holder who proposed the payment of Rs.6 lakhs into Court, rather t