debtor is not entitled for restitution, and he had no means to pay the reduced decretal amount, therefore, the sale was inevitable. Reference is made to Kuppa Sankara11 Sastri & Ors. Vs. Kakumanu Varaprasad & Anr.7 so also Lal Bhagwant Singh vs. Sri Kishen Das8 & South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra). 10. It is next argued by Mr. Parameshwar that the appellant/judgment debtor is not entitled to restitution against respondent no. 3 who purchased the property from the decree holder. Reference is made to Chinnamal (supra) & Padanathil (supra). Alternatively, it is argued by Mr. Parameshwar that extent of variation in the decree/order is an important factor to be considered by the Court in view of the language employed in Section 144 CPC providing restitution will be made “so far as may be ”in the context of“ insofar as a decree is varied or reversed”. It is argued that the restitution to the judgment debtor shall be in proportion to the variation/modification made in the decree so that