Bimla Devi vs. M/s Bittam Garages CMP No.18779 of 2023 in RSA No.310 of 2008 19.06.2025 Present: Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Trigun Singh Negi, Advocate, for the respondent. CMP No.18779 of 2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. The applicant, in the case at hand, was the appellant before this Court in the Regular Second Appeal. On account of having suffered a judgment and decree by both the Courts below, during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, a sum of Rs.90,392/- being decretal amount along-with interest has been deposited by the present applicant/appellant on 07.01.2009 in the Registry of this Court. The non-applicant/respondent in the Regular Second Appeal had moved an application for release of the amount so deposited. Vide order dated 27.08.2010, the amount deposited by the present applicant was ordered to be released in favour of the non-applicant/ respondent. However, the release was subject to the non-applicant furnishing a requisite security. The needful was done and thereafter the money was released. However, subsequent to the allowing of the Regular Second Appeal in favour of the present applicant/appellant, the non- applicant had deposited the amount withdrawn along-with interest accrued thereupon, on 27.11.2024. Since the appeal has now been allowed in favour of the present applicant/appellant, therefore, based on the security so furnished in terms of order dated 27.08.2010, the present applicant is entitled to release of amount, qua which a security had been furnished by the present non-applicant/respondent. The claim for any amount over and above the amount secured by way of a security furnished by the non-applicant can only be made by the present applicant by way of an application for restitution. In terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in State Bank of Saurashtra vs. Chitranjan Rangnath Raja and Anr., AIR 1980 SC 1528 and on a bare reading of Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is evident that where a decree or an order of a trial Court has been set aside in an appeal or revision, it is only the Court of first instance, which has been given a power to order restitution. In view of the aforesaid, it is made clear that the applicant in the present application is only entitled to release of amount secured by the security furnished by the non-applicant in terms of order dated 27.08.2010. For any over and above amount, in view of the settled position of law stated here-in-above, an application for restitution would only be maintainable before the trial Court. The amount so deposited on 27.11.2024 along-with interest accrued thereupon be released in favour of the applicant. The amount be remitted to the bank account, details whereof have been given in Paragraph-8 of the application, subject to proper verification. The application stands disposed of. ( Bipin C. Negi ) June 19, 2025 (KS) Judge