JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This is an Execution First Appeal by judgment-debtors. Smt. Champa Kuar and another obtained a preliminary mortgage decree against Shambhu Dayal and others on 11-4-1947. The Court passed a final decree on 10-1-1948. The decree-holders applied for execution of the final decree. During the course of execution proceedings, the judgment-debtors applied for reduction of the decretal debt under Sec 4 of the U.P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act, 1952 (Act XV of 1953 - hereinafter referred to as the Act). The decretal amount was reduced under Sec. 4 of the Act. The judgment-debtors deposited the reduced amount mentioned in the decree The decree-holders got the execution application amended. They applied for execution and realisation of a sum of Rs. 977-8-3, on account of costs and interest. The judgment debtors objected on the ground that nothing was now due under the amended decree. That objection was overruled by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Etawah. He directed that execution should proceed Shambhu Dayal and other judgment-debtors have filed this Execution First Appeal against that order, dated 22-11-1958. 2. The order under appeal is brief and runs thus:- "The J.D. is certainly liable to pay costs and interest allowed on original decretal amount up to 30-6 1952 and on reduced amount after 1-7-1952. Office to calculate and proceed." 3. According to the learned Civil Judge, the judgment-debtors are liable to pay costs, past interest and future interest in addition to the sums specified in the amended decree. This position has been disputed on behalf of the judgment-debtors-appellants. 4. It is to be remembered that the original decree has been amended under Sec. 4 of the Act. It is the amended decree that the decree-holders can possibly execute. Sec. 4 of the Act confers power on the Court to reduce debts after passing a decree. Under Sec. 4, the Court calculates the amount due on 1-7-1952, and then reduces it in accordance with the formula given in the Schedule to the Act. The expression "amount due" has been defined in clause (a) of Sec. 2 of the Act - " Amount due means the amount which would be due if this Act had not been passed." 5. That definition makes it clear that the amount due on 1-7-1952 would include the principal amount, costs awarded by the decree and interest up to that date. That definition makes it clear that the amount due on 1-7-1952 would include the principal amount, costs awarded by the decree and interest up to that date. The amount due has to be reduced in accordance with the formula given in the Schedule. Sec. 4 contains no specific provision for awarding interest on the amount so reduced. Sec. 7 of the Act states: - "After the amount due has been reduced under and in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 4, the decree shall, to the extent of the reduction so affected, be deemed for all purposes and on all occasions to have been duly satisfied." 6. In the present case the original decree was amended by the Court on 28-5-1956. The operative part of the order dated 28-5-1956 ran thus: - "The amounts of the decree in question are reduced as follows: - The defendant-appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay Rs. 820 on account of their zamindari property on 1-7-1952. On the same date the defendant No. 4 applicant is found liable to pay Rs. 205-3-6 as against the zamindari property. All these defendants-applicants J. Ds. are further found liable on 1-7-1952 for payment of Rs. 1,542-5-0. This amount shall be recovered from their non-zamindari property and they shall be jointly and severally liable for this amount. The decretal amount of the decree shall be reduced accordingly, and the decree shall be amended accordingly. ..." 7. The operative part of the order dated 28-5-1956 mentions three separate amounts under three heads. The total of the three amounts comes to Rs. 2,557-8-6. 8. I have also examined the preliminary decree and the final decree. The preliminary decree was for Rs. 3,664 as the principal amount due. A sum of Rs. 393-13-0 was awarded on account of past interest. A sum of Rs. 547-4-0 was payable as proportionate costs. The total liability under the preliminary decree came to Rs. 4,605-1-0. The total liability under the final decree came to Rs. 4,637-12-9. It will thus be seen that the liability under the amended decree was for Rs. 2,567-8-6 as against Rs. 4,637-12-9 under the unamended final decree. The sum of Rs. 2,567-8-6 has to be substituted for the original amount of Rs. 4,637-12-9. That amount covered costs and interest. It must, therefore, be understood that the new amount of Rs. 4,637-12-9. It will thus be seen that the liability under the amended decree was for Rs. 2,567-8-6 as against Rs. 4,637-12-9 under the unamended final decree. The sum of Rs. 2,567-8-6 has to be substituted for the original amount of Rs. 4,637-12-9. That amount covered costs and interest. It must, therefore, be understood that the new amount of Rs. 2,567-8-6 has already taken into account the question of costs and interest. Mr. A. P. S. Chauhan, appearing for the respondents, conceded that under the amended decree the respondents cannot make any further claim on account of past interest. The same remark applies to proportionate costs under the decree. It was conceded that the amount specified in the amended decree has already been deposited in Court. There cannot be any further claim for costs and past interest. 9. Mr. Chauhan, however, presses the claim for interest after 1-7-1952. We have seen that section 4 of the Act does not contain any specific provision for awarding future interest on the reduced amount. The order dated 28-5-1956 also does not contain any direction about future interest. We must, therefore, take it that the amended decree does not contain any direction about payment of future interest. The claims made by the decree-holders under the three heads - (a) past interest, (b) costs, and (c) future interest - must all be rejected. It means that the amended decree has been fully satisfied. Nothing is now due under the amended decree. Considering that there was much delay in filing the appeal in this Court, parties may be directed to bear their own costs in this Court. 10. The appeal is allowed. The execution application is dismissed with costs. Parties shall bear their own costs or this Court.