ORDER The order, dated 15-3-2004, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, in E.A.No.199 of 2003 in E.P.No.62 of 2002 in 0.S.No.64 of 1995, is challenged in this revision. 2. The facts, that gave rise to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, are as under: The petitioner is a Financing Agency. It paid certain amounts to respondent No.2, a partnership firm, of which respondents 3 to 11 are partners. Alleging that the amount advanced by it was not repaid by respondents 3 to 11, the petitioner filed O.S.No.9 of 1992 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,88,841 1-. Later on, the suit was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, and re-numbered as O.S.64 of 1995. 3. A suit filed by respondents 2 to 11 against the Government, 151 respondent herein, being O.S.No.374 of 1987, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, was pending. It was in relation to a claim under a contract. The subject-matter of that suit was referred to an arbitrator and ultimately, an award was passed, for a sum of RS.15,00,850/-in favour of respondents 2 to 11. A decree making it as rule of court was also passed in O.S.No.374 of 1987. 4. The 151 respondent filed c.M.A.No.241 of 1991 before this court against the decree in O.S.No.374 of 1987. In C.M.P.No.2366 of 1991, an order of stay was granted, on condition that the 151 respondent deposits a sum of Rs.8, 74,8521- together with interest, to the credit of O.S.No.374 of 1987. Respondents 2 to 11 were permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount by furnishing security and the balance without security. 5. After the amount was deposited to the credit of O.S.No.374 of 1987, the petitioner filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. for attachment of the amount, so deposited, to the extent of Rs. 5,83,841/-. O.S.No.64 of 1995 was ultimately decreed on 14-9-2001. The petitioner filed E.P.No.62 of 2002. EANoA9 of 2002 was filed in that E.P., to send for the attached amount. The executing court, in turn, sent for the attached amount and after receiving the same, it issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner on 30-1-2003. 6. The C.MA filed by the 1st respondent was partly allowed, reducing the liability of the 1st respondent to Rs.4,57,720/- instead of 15,00,850/-. The executing court, in turn, sent for the attached amount and after receiving the same, it issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner on 30-1-2003. 6. The C.MA filed by the 1st respondent was partly allowed, reducing the liability of the 1st respondent to Rs.4,57,720/- instead of 15,00,850/-. In that view of the matter, the 1st respondent became entitled to recover certain amount from respondents 2 to 11. 7. The 1st respondent filed EANo.199 of 2003 in E.P.No.62 of 2002 in O.S.No.64 of 1995 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, against the petitioner, under Section 151 C.P.C., for recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner. The application was resisted on the ground that it is not maintainable in law and at the most, an application under Section 144 C.P.C. has to be filed, in the same Court, in which O.S.No.374 of 1987 was filed. The executing Court, however, overruled the objection and allowed EANo.199 of 2003. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the 1st respondent was totally incompetent, for more reasons, than one. He contends that basically, it was a case for filing application under Section 144 C.P.C., that too in the Court, which passed the original decree. 9. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, on the other hand, submits that being the beneficiary of the amount that was deposited by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is under obligation to refund the same and that no exception can be taken to the order under revision. 10. The relevant facts have already been stated with permissible brevity. It is not necessary to repeat the same. The only question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the application filed by the 1st respondent under Section 151 C.P.C. is maintainable in law? Shorn of the unnecessary details, the 1st respondent wanted to recover the amount, which was parted by it, in favour of respondents 2 to 11. There did not exist any privity of contract or any relation, between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The order of attachment before judgment obtained by the petitioner, was against respondents 2 to 11, and it was incidental that the amount deposited by the 1st respondent became the subject matter of such proceedings. There did not exist any privity of contract or any relation, between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The order of attachment before judgment obtained by the petitioner, was against respondents 2 to 11, and it was incidental that the amount deposited by the 1st respondent became the subject matter of such proceedings. All the same, the attachment and subsequent withdrawal of that amount, was on account of the liability of respondents 2 to 11 towards the petitioner. 11.lt is true that once the liability under the decree in O.S.No.374 of 1987 is slashed down from Rs.15,00,850/- to Rs.4,57,720/-, the 1st respondent is entitled to recover the amount, which was paid by it, in excess of that amount. It is immaterial as to whether the amount deposited by the 1st respondent in pursuance of the orders passed in C.M.P.No.2366 of 1991 was withdrawn by respondents 2 to 11 or any other person, claiming through them. The basic liability to repay the differential amount, would rest with respondents 2 to 11. 12. The Code of Civil Procedure has taken care of the situations, where the decrees passed by the Courts are varied, at later stages. It is ensured that the loss or disadvantage, that is caused to a party on the basis of a decree, is restored; as and when such decree is varied, modified or set aside. 13. Section 144 C.P .C. provides for restitution of the parties to the same position which they would have occupied, but for a decree which was varied, reversed or set aside, at a subsequent stage. The provision is unequivocal and clear to the extent that the application for restitution shall be made in the Court, which passed the decree or order. Explanation appended to the Section, made it further clear that where a decree is varied or reversed in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the proceedings must be initiated in the Court of first instance. Therefore, the 151 respondent ought to have filed an application specifically under Section 144 C.P .C. that too in the Court, which passed the decree in O.S.No.344 of 1987. Curiously, the 151 respondent has chosen to file an application under Section 151 C.P.C., that too in the Court, which has nothing to do with O.S.No.374 of 1987. 14. Therefore, the 151 respondent ought to have filed an application specifically under Section 144 C.P .C. that too in the Court, which passed the decree in O.S.No.344 of 1987. Curiously, the 151 respondent has chosen to file an application under Section 151 C.P.C., that too in the Court, which has nothing to do with O.S.No.374 of 1987. 14. It is a settled principle of law that Section 151 C.P.C. cannot be had recourse to, where the situation is governed by specific provisions. When it is clearly evident that the situation is governed by Section 144 C.P.C., it. was totally impermissible for the 151 respondent to invoke Section 151 C.P.C. Therefore, viewed from any angle! the order under revision cannot be sustained. 15. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the 1st respondent to take necessary steps, against respondent 2 to 11, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.