( 1. ) THIS appeal by the judgment debtor is directed against an order dated 16 November 1966 whereby the District Judge, Rewa, declined to order restitution consequent upon variation of a money decree by the Supreme court on the ground that it was not covered by the directions given by this court under Order 45, rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment debtor too has filed an application for such directions, if necessary [miscellanea is Civil Case No. 119 of 1967]. This order shall dispose of that application so.

( 2. ) THE fact material for the disposal of this appeal are these. The res-indent filed Civil Suit No. 36 of 1952 in the Court of the District Judge, Rewa, aiming Rs. 22,996-8-8. The Judge awarded a decree for Rs. 554-11-0 only gainst the judgment-debtor. In appeal, the Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya pradesh, enhanced that amount to Rs. 20,307-14-8. The judgment-debtor an appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 334 of 1956. The supreme Court reduced the amount to Rs. 17,320-5-8 and gave directions for its.

( 3. ) ON 17 January 1964, the judgment-debtor made to this Court an location under Order 45, rule 15 of the Code. On that application, this art passed on 10 February 1964 the following order :

"let a certificate for recovery of coats according to the decree dated 18 January 1961 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 334 of 1956 and the order dated 5 November 1962 taxing the costs be transmitted to the District Judge, Rewa The Supreme Courts decree contains inter alia the direction that the costs of Civil First Appeal No. 78 of 1953 of the Court of the judicial Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh, shall be paid and received by each party in proportion to the success in the appeal before the Supreme Court. The District Judge shall determine the amount of these costs according to this direction and make an order for their recovery accordingly. "

( 4. ) WHEN the District Judge received the order of the Supreme Court as transmitted to it in pursuance of the above order, both parties applied for execution of the order relating to costs, which were subsequently fully satisfied. In the meanwhile, on 28 July 1964, the judgment-debtor made an application under sections 144 and 151 of the Code for restitution. It claimed the excess amount (which had already been paid) by which the Supreme Court had reduced the decree and interest at 6% per annum. The District Judge dismissed that application as barred by time. In Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 21 of 1965 dated 6 December 1965, Naik J. held on the authority of Mahijibhai v. Manibhai (AIR 1965 SC 1477.) that it was an application for execution to enforce the order of the supreme Court, that it was governed by the 12 years rule prescribed by Article 1p3 of the Limitation Art and, therefore, it was within time. When the case went back to the District Court, it now held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for restitution because it was not covered by the directions given by this Court on 10 February 1964.

( 5. ) HAVING heard the counsel, I have formed the opinion that the order of the District Judge, which is challenged in this appeal, is grounded upon a misconception of the function of the High Court under Order 45, rule 15 of the Code and the true nature and effect of this Courts order dated 10 February 1964. No doubt the provisions of rule 15 are mandatory in the sense that the decree cannot be executed without an order of the appropriate High Court transmitting the record to the Court executing it : Mussammat Bhagwanta Kuer v. Dewan Zamir Ahmad Khan (ILR 3 Pat 596.) and Madarsa Hakimia and Coronation High School society v. Mulla Ali Bhai (Letters Patent Appeal No. 36 of 1963, decided on the 6th August 1964.) But the function of the High Court under this rule is purely ministerial: In the matter of the petition of Kally Secondary Dabia (ILR 6 Cal 594.)Premlall Mullick v. Sumbhoonath Roy (ILR 22 Cal 960) and Krishna Bhoopati Deo Garu v.