JUDGEMENT : A.H. KHAN, J. This first appeal arises out of execution proceedings and is filed by the judgment-debtor against an order of District Judge, Indore, in civil execution case No. 30/1950, passed on 16-2-1951. 2. The short facts of the case are that out of a sum of Rs.20,000/-, the judgment-debtpr deposited Rs.12000/- in the court, but he failed to give notice to the decree-holder according to O.21 R.1(2), Civil P.C. It is admitted that interest was awarded by the decree on the decretal amount. The question for determination, in the circumstances is whether interest on the amount of Rs.12000/- ceases from the date of its deposit in court or not? 3. The court of first instance has held that it does not, and, that the decree-holder is entitled to interest until he receives notice of payment into court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that decretal amount paid into the court is tantamount to payment to the decree-holder and as such interest must cease from the date of its deposit in the court. He has cited - 'Laxmi Narayan Ganeshdas v. Ghasiram Dalchand', AIR 1939 Nag 191 (A), in support of his contention. 5. There is no doubt that in AIR 1939 Nag 191 (A), a view has been taken that payment in the court is equivalent to payment to the decree-holder, and that interest should not run from the date of payment in the court. The learned Judges of the Nagpur High Court have based their view on a case decided by the Privy Council and reported in - 'Baijnath Singh v. Jamal Bros. and Co.', AIR 1924 PC 133 (B). With very great respect, I am afraid that the Privy Council ruling does not lay down that proposition at all. In a suit to set aside a sale, a conditional decree was passed, ordering the payment of an amount by a certain date, and on such payment being made, possession of the disputed property was to be restored to the plaintiffs. In a suit to set aside a sale, a conditional decree was passed, ordering the payment of an amount by a certain date, and on such payment being made, possession of the disputed property was to be restored to the plaintiffs. Instead of paying the amount directly, it was deposited in the court and their Lordships observed: "Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that while the condition would have been satisfied by a payment to the appellant in person, which he accepted, it was equally satisfied by a payment into court, and that the latter was, in the circumstances, the appropriate mode of satisfying the condition." 6. Now in the first place, these observations were made by the Privy Council in a mortgage case, and, secondly the decree did not award any interest till the realisation of the amount, but merely specified a definite sum, which was to be paid within six months. And last but not the least from a careful perusal of the Privy Council ruling, I find that after the deposit of the money in the court, "a notice to this effect was signed by Mr. R.B. Gogte, the Civil Judge". This means that a notice was actually given to the mortgagee that money has been paid in court. I am afraid this part of the Privy Council judgment escaped the notice of the Nagpur High Court. 7. Let us consider why the law in O.21 R.1, C.P.C., has provided that notice of payment (when money is deposited in court) shall be given to the decree-holder. The reason why interest at all is awarded by the decree on decretal amount, is that because the decree-holder is deprived of the use of his money to which he is entitled, he must be compensated for it, till the payment is actually made and till he is put in a position to utilise his money in any manner he may choose. This being so, it was deemed necessary to inform the decree-holder of the deposit made in court behind his back, so that he may recover the amount and utilise it. It is just and proper that after a notice has been given, the judgment-debtor should not be saddled with any further liability, because if after notice, the decree-holder does not take steps to recover the money, it is he, who alone is to blame. 8. It is just and proper that after a notice has been given, the judgment-debtor should not be saddled with any further liability, because if after notice, the decree-holder does not take steps to recover the money, it is he, who alone is to blame. 8. The provision of giving notice under O.21 R.1(2), Civil P.C., is based on principles of justice, equity and good conscience and furthermore any departure from it would have the effect of rendering a mandatory provision nugatory. The deposit of decretal amount in the court quietly by the judgment-debtor and then leaving it to the decree-holder to discover it for himself, would more or less amount to a game of hide-and-seek, and, of course, the court of law is not a play-ground for litigants. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to - 'Ramaraya Shanbogue v. Venkatramanayya', AIR 1919 Mad 445 (C); - 'S.I. Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Mayilvahanan', AIR 1943 Mad 334 (D); - 'Special Land Acquisition Officer. Ahmedabad v. Ambalal Trikamlal', AIR 1951 Bora 394 (E) and - 'Janaki Animal v. Mathiri', AIR 1952 Trav-C 236 (F), in which it is held that interest will not cease to run on the amount deposited in court until decree-holder gets notice of the deposit. 10. For reasons stated above, the appeal is disallowed with costs. 11. MEHTA, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.