JUDGMENT K.M. Pandey, J. 1. This revision has been directed against an order passed in C. S. No. 42A of 1986, dated August 27, 1990, by the Tenth Additional District Judge, Indore, whereby the learned judge refused to direct the payment of interest to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3, namely, National Textile Corporation, Indore, filed a suit in the court for a declaration and injunction in respect of the income-tax refund of Rs. 1,60,000. Respondent No. 3 also applied for an injunction restraining payment of this amount to the applicant, Messrs. Kalyanmal Mills Ltd The trial court, by the impugned order dated March 24, 1984, directed the payment of this amount to the petitioner. Against this order, respondent No. 3 preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal No. 178 of 1984 which was decided by this court on January 30, 1987. The court has directed that the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 be released to the petitioner on furnishing a bank guarantee of like amount. A bank guarantee has, accordingly, been furnished and the amount has been paid to the present petitioner. In the meantime, it transpired that interest has also become due on this amount. The petitioner, accordingly, applied to the trial court that this interest must also be paid to the petitioner. The trial court has declined to pass the order saying that it was for the parties to seek an order of the High Court in this matter. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial court, this revision has been filed on the ground that the principal amount having been refunded to the petitioner, the interest must follow the principal amount and the interest must also be paid to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions. It is a case of non-exercise of jurisdiction by the court below. 3. I have heard the parties and perused the records. There are some admitted facts in this case, namely, that by order dated October 20, 1987, it was directed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 should pay Rs. 1,60,000 to defendant No. 3 within a week's time. Earlier by an order dated March 24, 1984, passed in the regular suit, it was directed that this amount be paid to defendant No. 3 by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. 1 and 2 should pay Rs. 1,60,000 to defendant No. 3 within a week's time. Earlier by an order dated March 24, 1984, passed in the regular suit, it was directed that this amount be paid to defendant No. 3 by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 178 of 1984 was filed in the High Court and by an order dated January 30, 1987, the High Court imposed a condition whereby the bank guarantee was furnished. The learned Additional District Judge has felt hesitant in passing any order in respect of the amount of interest which was earned on the principal amount of Rs. 1,60,000 to the party who has been directed to be paid this amount as principal amount. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that, since the order of payment has been passed by the High Court, a decision regarding interest should also be passed by the High Court itself. As the trial court passed an order on March 24, 1984, that the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 be paid to the petitioner, a miscellaneous appeal was preferred against this order which was decided by the High Court on January 30, 1987, and this court has directed that the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 be released to the petitioner on furnishing a bank guarantee in the like amount and, after the bank guarantee was furnished, the amount had been paid to the petitioner. On these facts, the interest, if any, earned on the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 has necessarily to be paid to the petitioner on the same conditions on which the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 has been paid to him, i.e., on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount of interest as well. 4. It was argued before me that a revision does not lie against this order. A M. C. C. should have been filed. Without entering into this controversy, I find that the learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction in this matter. Once the High Court has given a direction that the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 be released to the petitioner on furnishing a bank guarantee, the necessary corollary is that the interest earned on the amount should also follow the principal and the amount of interest may be paid to the petitioner on furnishing a bank guarantee in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court. 1,60,000 be released to the petitioner on furnishing a bank guarantee, the necessary corollary is that the interest earned on the amount should also follow the principal and the amount of interest may be paid to the petitioner on furnishing a bank guarantee in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court. The revision is disposed of accordingly.