G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal is whether the decree of the trial Judge passed in T. S. No. 26 of 1967 can be said to have been modified or varied in Second Appeal No. 54/ 75 by which judgment this Court did not interfere with the decree directing refund of consideration money but reduced the rate of interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent. The aforesaid question crops up for consideration in view of the order of restitution passed under Section 144, C. P. C. Section 144, C. P. C. is extracted hereinbelow in extenso:"144. Application for restitution. (1) 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 of such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified and, for this purpo