JUDGMENT - Ginwala A.A., J.: - The applicant has obtained a decree against the non-applicant for payment of money. The copy of the decree is not on record, but from the execution application which has been filed by the applicant it appears that the decree directed the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 292 with future interest at 12 per cent per annum. This decree was passed on 23rd June 1970. Thereafter the applicant filed five execution petitions which appear to have been disposed of with costs on the non-applicant. The costs awarded to the applicant from the non-applicant in respect of these execution petitions totally amount to Rs. 44-65 p. The applicant then filed the present execution petition on 1st of August, 1977 for a total amount of Rs. 525.70 p. and the break-up of this amount is as follows: Rs. 292.00 Principal Rs. 17520 Interest from 4-8-1972 to 1-8-1977 on Rs. 292. Rs. 13.85 Expenses for arrest. Rs. 44.65 Costs of past execution petitions. Rs. 525.70 Total The applicant sought to execute the decree by arrest and detention of the nonapplicant in Civil Prison. Notice was issued to the non-applicant under Order 21 rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure(hereinafter referred to as the Code), but he did not appear. It appears that an objection was raised by the Office of the Court to the effect that execution petition for arrest and detention of the non-applicant would not be tenable inasmuch as the total amount of the decree did not exceed Rs. 500. It appears that this objection was raised in view of sub-sections(l) and(1A) of section 58 of the Code. Now from the order passed by the executing Court on 5th October, 1977 it appears that the .amount of future interest which was included in the said amount recoverable under the execution petition was not taken to be amount .of the decree. The executing Court held that this was unascertained sum on the date when the decree is drawn and such a sum could not be taken to be included in the total amount of the decree as contemplated by sub-section(1) of section 58. In this view of the matter the trial Court rejected the execution petition and it is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. 2. Mr. In this view of the matter the trial Court rejected the execution petition and it is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. 2. Mr. B. S Deshpande the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the view taken by the executing Court with regard to the amount of future interest not being part of the decree is not correct. He submits that since the future interest is awarded by the decree, it would be amount of the decree within the meaning of sub-section(lA) of section 58 of the Code. 3. Sub-section(1A) of section 58 has been inserted in the Code by the Amendment Act of 1976 and it is as follows: “( 1A) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no order for detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison in execution of a decree for the payment of money shall be made, where the total amount of the decree does not exceed five hundred rupees.” It would, therefore, be clear that the judgment-debtor cannot be detained in civil prison in execution of a decree for payment of money if the total amount of the decree does not exceed five hundred rupees. The question, therefore, which falls for consideration is as to what is meant by “the total amount of the decree.” In the context of the facts of the present case the question would be whether the future interest awarded in the decree could be termed as amount of the decree. As seen already, the executing Court has taken the view that this could not be an amount of the decree inasmuch as the future interest could not be ascertained at the time when the decree is passed. In my opinion, this view of the executing Court on the lace of it is not correct. Sub-section(1A) of section 58 does not say that the decree in respect of ascertained sum at the time when it is passed could only be termed as the amount of the decree. In my view, the amount of the decree would mean any amount which is awarded under a decree. Now this amount may be a sum certain at the time when the decree is passed or may be an unascertained amount as in the case of future interest. In my view, the amount of the decree would mean any amount which is awarded under a decree. Now this amount may be a sum certain at the time when the decree is passed or may be an unascertained amount as in the case of future interest. There is nothing in this sub-section to indicate that only the ascertained part of the sum has to be taken as the amount of the decree for the purpose of this sub-section. If the future interest has been ordered to be paid under the decree, the amount of interest which accrues on the date when the petition for execution is filed would all the same be as amount of the decree because it is awarded by the decree. In my opinion, therefore, there is no has is for holding that the future interest awarded by a decree cannot be said to be an amount of the decree. Now if this is so, the amount of Rs. 175.20 in respect of future interest will have to be included in the amount of the decree. 4. However, it is to be noted that the amount of Rs. 525.70 which is claimed in the execution petition includes, as seen above, the expenses for police aid and costs of previous execution petitions. These two items aggregately amount to Rs. 58.50 p. The question is whether this amount can be said to be the amount of a decree within the meaning of sub-section(1A) of section 58. Obviously this would not be so for the simple reason that the decree which is sought to be executed has not awarded costs of execution also. The amounts which are claimed as costs of the previous execution petitions are included in the present execution petition by way of execution of the orders passed in those petitions for payment of costs and these orders are executable under section 36 of the Code. Hence by no stretch of imagination it could be said that this amount of Rs. 58.50 p. is amount of the decree and cannot be included in the total amount of the decree for the purpose of ascertaining whether such amount exceeds Rs. 500 to enable the decree holder to execute the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. Now if this amount of Rs. 58.50 p. is amount of the decree and cannot be included in the total amount of the decree for the purpose of ascertaining whether such amount exceeds Rs. 500 to enable the decree holder to execute the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. Now if this amount of Rs. 58.50 p. is not to be included in the total amount of the decree, then the total amount of the decree would be Rs. 467.20 p. including future interest. This obviously falls short of Rs. 500 which is the limit prescribed in sub-section(1A) of section 58. If that is so, the applicant cannot execute the decree against the non-applicant by his arrest and detention as it would be hit by sub-section(1A) of section 58. 5. The result, therefore, is that the order passed by the executing Court will have to be maintained though on altogether different grounds. 6. The revision application, therefore, is dismissed. Since the nonapplicant has not appeared, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision application dismissed. -----