THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Review ASMP(SR) No.11231 of 2009 in A.S. No.743 of 2004 Order: This review petition has been filed praying to review the judgment of this Court dated 11.08.2009 passed in A.S. No.743 of 2004. The brief facts are that the first respondent-State Bank of India, Tuni, represented by its Branch Manager filed the suit in O.S. No.23 of 1998 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of Rs.6,37,369/- from the petitioner and others. The Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 09.02.1995. The respondents 2 and 3 herein who are defendants 2 and 3 before the lower Court stood as guarantors. Alleging that the petitioner failed to pay the loan amount as per the schedule and he fell due an amount of Rs.6,37,369/- the suit was filed after issuing legal notice. The petitioner herein admitted that he had obtained the loan, but he had taken a plea that the bank did not permit him to sell the lorry and due to which he sustained loss of about Rs.1,00,000/-. The lower Court, considering the entire material, decreed the suit for Rs.5,37,36/- by judgment dated 02.08.2001. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner filed the appeal in A.S. No.743 of 2004 contending that certain amounts paid by him were not given credit to. However, this Court, observing that the petitioner did not give any details of the amounts that were paid by him, which were not given credit to and that the trial Court has already granted him the benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- on the issue of non co-operation of bank officials in disposing of the lorry and there are no grounds to reduce the amount, confirmed the judgment passed by the lower Court, by judgment dated 11.08.2009. To review the said judgment, the present review petition is filed. The petitioner has referred to certain discrepancies with regard to quantum of amount mentioned in Exs.A1 and A2 and appreciation of evidence with regard to Ex.A3. It is not possible to re-examine the entire oral and documentary evidence in a review petition. The petitioner claims that he has made certain payments which are excessive than the actual amount to be paid by him to the Bank. It appears that the dispute is with regard to calculation of certain amounts and interest period. The respondent-Bank has filed a calculation memo dated 13.08.2012 and also acknowledgment from the second respondent. It appears that there was one time settlement through the guarantors and the amounts were paid to the Bank as per the one time settlement. It also appears that the second respondent has received necessary documents from the Bank. Now the petitioner’s main submission is that certain amounts paid by him were not given proper credit. Taking further evidence, marking of fresh documents or appreciation of entire evidence is not possible in a review petition. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that if at all the petitioner wants to prove that he has made excessive payment, he may approach the lower Court claiming benefit by way of restitution under Section 144 of CPC and in support of his contention he has relied on a decision reported in B. Yamuna Bai v. Lade Venkoba Rao[1]. Section 144 CPC is as follows. 144. Application for restitution.-(1) Where and in so far as a decree of 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 of order shall, on the application of any party entitled in 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 or modified]; and, for this purpose, the Court may make any orders, including 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 sub-section (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 separate 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). In the above circumstances, the review petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the lower Court under Section 144 CPC. The petitioner may also approach the District Legal Services Authority for legal assistance, if required, since he is appearing as party-in-person. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 01.10.2012 Nsr [1] AIR 1976 AP 46