ORDER Respondent filed E.P.No.68 of 2004 seeking arrest of the revision petitioner on the ground that the revision petitioner who had withdrawn the amount deposited by it in a.p.No.67 of 1993, in pursuance of the award obtained by the revision petitioner, did not redeposit the amount into Court even after the appeal filed by it In the High Court in A.S.No.1373 of 1996 was allowed. 2. Revision petitioner filed a counter contesting the E.P. 3. On its behalf respondent examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and in support of his case, the revision petitioner examined himself as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. 4. The executing Court on the ground that the revision petitioner having sufficient means is evading to pay the amount, directed his arrest. Questioning the said order, this revision is preferred. 5. Neither the E.P. nor the evidence adduced by the respondent discloses the respondent filing a petition under Section 144 CPC seeking restitution. Merely because the High Court set aside the award of the reference Court in an appeal preferred by the respondent, respondent cannot straightaway file an E.P. seeking return of the amount withdrawn by the revision petitioner. Whenever a decree passed by the trial Court is reversed or varied by a superior Court, in the event of the decree holder in the trial Court either in execution or otherwise obtaining the benefit conferred on him by the trial Court, the successful party in the superior Court has to file a petition under Section 144 CPC seeking restitution. The order passed in such petition would then become a decree in his favour as per Section 2 (2) CPC and that order would become an executable decree. There is no provision in CPC which enables the judgment-debtor in a trial Court directly applying to the executing Court for restitution in the event of the decree of the trial Court being reversed or varied by a superior Court. 6. There is no provision in CPC which enables the judgment-debtor in a trial Court directly applying to the executing Court for restitution in the event of the decree of the trial Court being reversed or varied by a superior Court. 6. Since there is nothing on record to show that the respondent filed an application for restitution and since there is nothing on record to show that an order of restitution was passed, I set aside the order under revision and remit the case to the executing Court to find out if the respondent filed an application for restitution and if any order directing restitution of the amount paid by the respondent to the revision petitioner was passed and then proceed further. This revision petition is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.