P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri N. K. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Counsel representing Sri P. Suresh, Counsel for revision petitioners in all these civil revision petitions and Sri Rajasekhar, learned assistant Government Pleader. ( 2 ) THIS batch of Revisions ansc out of the orders made in E. P. Nos. 39/96, 34/97, 35/97, 36/97, 37/97, 38/97, 40/96 in OP no. 122/85, filed by the revision petitioners aggrieved by the orders dated 19-4-2000 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, eluru. The lands belonging to all these revision petitioners were the subject- matter of the land acquistion proceedings and these lands were acquired and possession was taken and the land acquistion officer had fixed the compensation and on reference to civil Court the compensation was enchanced and pending appeals in the High Court of A. P. stay orders had been granted on condition of the Land acquistion Officer-respondent depositing 40% of the enhanced compensation and further directing that the amounts so deposited were permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioners and ultimately the appeals were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisiton Officer preferred Civil Appeals 8743-45/93 to the hon ble Supreme Court of India and the learned Judges of the Apex Court by thejudgment dated 27-10-1994 had allowed the said appeals, restored the awards made by the Land Acquistion Officer and consequently proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of amounts in pursuance of the interim orders of the Hon ble High Court of A. P. together with interest at 15% had been initiated. The Court below by the orders dated 19-4-2000 had perused the calculation memos filed by the revision petitioners and also calculations by way of objections filed by the Government and directed the revision petitioners to refund (he excess payment calculating 15% interest. Aggrieved by the said, this batch of revisions had been preferred. Since in all these matters the same question is involved, all these matters are being disposed of by a common order. ( 3 ) SRI. N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy had drawn my attention to the operative portion of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-45 of 1994, which reads as follows:"appeals are accordingly allowed. Since in all these matters the same question is involved, all these matters are being disposed of by a common order. ( 3 ) SRI. N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy had drawn my attention to the operative portion of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-45 of 1994, which reads as follows:"appeals are accordingly allowed. The award and decree of the reference Court under section 26 and the Judgment and decree of the High Court under Section 54 are set aside. The claimants are entitled to the aforesaid amounts. In the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own respective costs . The learned Counsel had contended that there is no reference relating to the payment of interest as such on the. excess amount if any paid already. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to the decision of Apex Court in Lucy Kochuvareed v. P. Mariappa Gounder and others, air 1979 SC 1214 at p. 1224, the Apex court had observed as folio ws:- "a sum of Rs. 30,000,00, being the rent collected by the Receiver from the third defendant, was deposited in Court. This amount was withdrawn by the third defendant on 19-8-1953 following the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit by the High Court. When the plaintiffs appeal succeeded in this Court and a decree was passed in his favour by this Court, then defendant 3 redeposited the sum of Rs. 30,000,00, only on 9-3-1959. The trial Court had awarded interest at 6 per cent per annum on this amount of Rs. 30,000,00, for the period from 19-8-1953, the date on which the defendant withdrew that deposit, untill 9-3-1959, the dale when he redeposited the sum. The High Court has disallowed interest on this amount for the aforesaid period on the ground "that the Supreme court does not award that". We are unable to agree with this reasoning. It overlooked the fact thai interest on the sum of Rs. 30,000,00 was being claimed under Section 144 of the Code of Civil procedure, by way of restitution. Section 144, in terms, says that for the purpose of the restitution, the Court may make any orders, including orders of the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits which are properly consequential on variation or reversal of the decree. 30,000,00 was being claimed under Section 144 of the Code of Civil procedure, by way of restitution. Section 144, in terms, says that for the purpose of the restitution, the Court may make any orders, including orders of the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits which are properly consequential on variation or reversal of the decree. There is nothing in the decree, dated April 22, 1958, of this Court which expressly or by implication prohibited the payment of interest on this sum, by way of restitution. The trial Court had rightly allowed interest on this amount for this period at 6 per cent annum, and we restore the same direction. "the learned Counsel had stressed on the portion the High Court has disallowed interest on this amount for the aforesaid period on the ground that the Supreme court does not award that. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the decision in Revenue Divisional Officer, guntur v. Vasireddy, AIR 1970 AP 262 (FB), in support of his contention. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Section 144 of the Code Civil procedure and had contended that the discretionary power under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be exercised judiciously and normally interest which will be granted pending the proceedings will be 6% only and hence the Court below is not justified in accepting the objection calculation memo of the government and fixing the interest at 15%. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the decision of Apex Court in sunder v. Union of India, 2001 (5) ALD 136 (SC) = 2001 (5) DT (SC) 191, in which the Apex Court held that the person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the granted amount including solatium. The learned Counsel also had contended that since this is the law declared by the Supreme Court of India it is binding on all the Courts and hence revised calculation memos are to be filed by the respective parties before the Court below to arrive at the correct calculations in the light of this pronouneemenl of the Apex Court too. The learned Counsel also had contended that since this is the law declared by the Supreme Court of India it is binding on all the Courts and hence revised calculation memos are to be filed by the respective parties before the Court below to arrive at the correct calculations in the light of this pronouneemenl of the Apex Court too. ( 4 ) SRI Rajasekhar Rao, the learned assistant Government Pleader had strenuously contended that while ordering restitution the benefit derived by the authority while receiving the amount should be restituted back to the ultimate successful party and the Court below in the facts and circumstamces is justified in accepting the objection calculation memo filed by the government and directing the revision petitioners to refund the respective amounts. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on the decision of Privy Conctl in l. Guran Dilta v. T. R, Ditta, AIR 1935 ap 12, wherein their Lordship of the Privy council no doubt held that interest also can be given in restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the Land Acquisition officer v. Marepalli Savitramma, 1992 (2) alt 685 , and also State v. G. R. Rice Mill contractors, AIR 1965 AP 398 . ( 5 ) SECTION 144 of the Code of Civil procedure dealing with application for restitution reads as follows: application for restitution :- (1) Where and insofar 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 or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside modified; and, for this purpose, the court may make any orders, includig orders for the refund of costs and for the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits, which are properly consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree or order. Explanation :- For the purposes of subsection (1), the expression "court which passed the decree or order" shall be deemed to include, (a) where the decree or order has been varied or reversed in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the Court of first instance; (b) where the decree or order has been set aside by a seprate suit, the Court of first instance which passed such decree or order; (c) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree or order was passed were instituted at the time of making the application for restitution under this section, would have jurisdiction to try such suit. (2) No suit shall be instituted for the purpose of obtaining any restitution or other relief which could be obtained by application under sub-section (1 ). The following words in Section 144 C. P. C. assume importance: ". . . . so far as may be place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for such a decree or order or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified". It is also further specified in the said Section, ". . . including orders for there fund of costs and for the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits which are properly consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree or order". Tt is needless to say that while exercising the power of restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has power to direct payment of interest also. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with the aspect of interest specifies that where and insofar as a decree for the payment of money the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum. from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit". But however, normally in matters of money claims, the usal ordinary interest, which will be granted, will be 12% per annum though Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies only 6%. In all these matters, the revision petitioners had the benefit and having received the amounts and having suffered a reversal at the bands of the Apex Court under section 144 CPC they are bound to refund those amounts as per the calculations. Now, the question is what could be the rate of interest. In General Manager, APSRTC and others v. Sangum Bhagyamma and another, 2001 (5) AID 404 = 2001 (1) ALT 132 (FB), a Full Bench of this Court while dealing with award of interest on compensation allowed by the appellate Judge, reduced the interest from 12% to 9% per annum as reasonable rate of interest due to change in enconomy and policy of Reserve Bank of india lowering interest rate on fixed deposits in Nationalised Banks and hence 9% interest was allowed from the date of the award till realisation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 6 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the ease, I am of the considered opinion that granting 9% interest on all these amounts will be just and reasonable. Hence, the impugned orders in these civil revision petitions are hereby set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Court below enabling both the parties to file their respective calculation memos calcualting the interest at 9% per annum on the respective amounts and also in the light of the decision rendered in the decision referred (supra ). ( 7 ) THE civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed with the directions stated supra. No order as to costs.