K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The judgment debtor in O.S.NO.551 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam is the revision petitioner. He challenges the order dated 7.4.2006 in E.A.No.163 of 2002 in E.P.No.249 of 1990, by which the prayer to refund a sum of Rs.78,431/- as alleged excess payment, was dismissed by the court below.

2. The suit was decreed on 17.8.1989 for realization of a sum of Rs.78,738.90 with interest at 16.5%. E.P.No.249 of 1990 was filed by the decree holder bank for realization of a sum of Rs.1,24,813.07. On 29.11.1999, the decree holder filed a statement showing the balance amount as Rs.78,431/-. On that basis, the judgment debtor paid that amount on 7.12.1999. On 14.12.1999, the Execution Petition was closed after recording full satisfaction of the decree. The case of the judgment debtor is that even after payment of Rs.78,431/-, the original title deeds were not returned by the decree holder bank.

3. On 20.1.2000, the decree holder filed E.A.No.45 of 2000 to review the order recording full satisfaction of the decree. In that application, the decree holder stated that interest was not calculated for the period from 12.9.1997 to 14.12.1999.

4. While E.A.No.45 of 2000 was pending, it would appear that the judgment debtor agreed to sell the property to a third party. According to the decree holder, Rs.45,000/-was still due to the bank at that time. The third party purchaser deposited that Rs.45,000/- before the executing court on 21.7.2001.

5. Meanwhile, the judgment debtor filed O.S.No.164 of 2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam against the decree holder bank claiming a sum of Rs.78,738.90 allegedly collected in excess by the decree holder bank. That suit was dismissed on 18.12.2003 on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and if at all the plaintiff therein was aggrieved, his remedy was only to file an application before the executing court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Thereafter on 11.6.2002, the judgment debtor filed E.A.No.163 of 2002 for the following reliefs:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed along with this petition, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to restore the execution petition No.249/90 in OS.No.551/87 and to call for the ledger containing the folio of the petitioner's loan account maintained by the plaintiff/Decree holder bank for favour of scrutiny to ascertain whether the amount of Rs.78431/-paid on demand by the petitioner out of court on 7.12.1999 to decree holder was legally due to it in addition of Rs.1,24,813/- paid by the petitioner towards decree debt."

The decree holder bank filed objections in E.A.No.163 of 2002 and contended that no excess amount was collected from the judgment debtor. The decree holder stated that it has no objection to reopen the Execution Petition. Statements as to payments and adjustments were also filed by the Bank. On 5.10.2005, the Execution Petition was restored to file.

7. The judgment debtor filed W.P.(C) No.7962 of 2006 before the High Court against the decree holder bank for a direction to the latter not to realize any further amount from the judgment debtor. That Writ Petition was disposed of permitting the judgment debtor to raise all the objections before the executing court. The executing court was also directed to look into the question whether the bank could be permitted to realize any further amount from the judgment debtor.

8. After the stranger purchaser deposited Rs.45,000/-before Court, E.A.No.45 of 2000 filed by the decree holder praying to review the order of the executing court recording full satisfaction of the decree was take up for hearing and the following order was passed on 23.3.2002:

"It is submitted by both sides that the entire amount has been paid. The learned counsel for the decree holder is also heard. It is submitted that EA can be closed. EA closed."

9. After passing the order dated 23.3.2002 in