Ama Vs. P.K. Abdulla4. It is then argued that where a decree holder himself is an auction purchaser, the sale cannot stand not only in the case of reversal of a decree but also on any variation or 2 AIR 1966 SC 948 3 AIR 1990 SC 1828 4 (1996) 7 SCC 6687 modification of it. It is submitted that the judgment debtor’s right under Section 144 CPC is ignited immediately after reversal or modification of the decree. Referring to South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.5, it is argued that the principles enshrined in Section 144 CPC have to be given the widest possible meaning, therefore, even in case of variation or modification of decree, restitution must follow. Reference is also made to Chinnamal (supra). 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant would highlight that the decree holder in the present case enjoyed harvesting 24 acres of land for over 25 years and then sold the said land for a sum of Rs. 39 lakhs on 17.07.2009 to respondent no. 3 who was gambling on the