JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the decree holder against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City dated 2.5.1989 in Execution Case No. 16 of 1987. 2. On 23.10.1980, a compromised decree was passed in the court of Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City against the respondents (judgment debtors) and in favour of the petitioner (decree-holder) for Rs. 11,792 + Rs. 1209 = Rs. 12,999. The decree-holder was allowed 2 per cent. per month as damages on the amount of Rs. 6000 from the date of suit, i.e. 25.6.1977 till the decretal amount was paid. The judgment debtors were allowed to pay the decretal amount in instalment of Rs. 500 per month. The first instalment was to begin from 10.5.82 3. On 7th Aug. 1987, the decree-holder filed execution application against the judgment-debtor (respondent no. 1) for realisation of Rs. 7533 by attachment and sale of the property of the respondent no. 1. Notice under 0.21 R. 22 Civil Procedure Code was issued on the application for attachment. To this notice, objections were filed by the respondent no. 1. He alleged that he had deposited Rs. 22,000 in the court and as such, was not liable to pay any money demanded by the decree holder. 4. The executing court held that the amount of instalment paid by the judgment debtor be first appropriated towards the principal amount of Rs. 6000 and thereafter towards other amounts. The executing court's order has been challenged by means of the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the executing court is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. 6. Before amendment,Rule 1 of O.XXI was as under: "(1) All the money payable under a decree shall be paid as follows - (a) into the court whose duty it is to execute the decree ; or (b) out of court to the decree holder; or (c) otherwise as the court which made the decree directs. (2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) of sub- rule (1), notice of such payment shall be given to the decree holder". 7. (2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) of sub- rule (1), notice of such payment shall be given to the decree holder". 7. The aforesaid provisions were amended by the Amendment Act (104 of 1976 and after the amendment, O.XXI R.1(4) stood as under : "Modes of payment of money under decree - (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely - (4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub- rule (2)." 8. 0.XXI R.1 defines the modes of payment of money under decree. Sub-rule (2) of 0.XXI R.1 provides that where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1),the judgment debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree holder either through the court or directly to him by registered post. Sub-rule (4) of O.XXI R.1 provides that where the judgment debtor intends to stop running of interest otherwise due under the decree he has to give a notice to the decree holder intimating him about the deposit of money in the court . In the absence of a notice the liability of interest may not cease. 9. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the notice of payment was given by the judgment debtor as required by 0.X)U,R.1(4) Civil Procedure Code. 10. Learned counsel for the decree-holder urged that he had a right under section 60 of the Contract Act as well as under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure first to appropriate the amount deposited towards interest and that his choice to do so could not be interfered with or impeded by taking away his right. Under section 60 of the Contract Act, if the judgment debtor does not make any appropriation at the time when he made the payment, the right of application devolves on the creditor and he may exercise that right until the very last moment and need not declare his intention in express terms. There were conflicting decisions on the questions as to the time when the creditor may elect to appropriate. The point was concluded by a decision of the Privy Council in Rama Shah v. Lal Chand, (1940) 67 IA-160 . There were conflicting decisions on the questions as to the time when the creditor may elect to appropriate. The point was concluded by a decision of the Privy Council in Rama Shah v. Lal Chand, (1940) 67 IA-160 . The Privy Council held that the creditor has a right to appropriate payment by the debtor to the principal or to the interest of the same debt. There is no obligation upon the creditor to make the appropriation at once though when once he has made an appropriation and communicated it to the debtor, he would have no right to appropriate it otherwise.In the instant case, however, the controversy was about O.XXI Rule 1 (4) CPC. The said provision has no concern with appropriation of payments. As said above, the executing court held that the amount of instalment paid by the judgment debtor will be first appropriated towards the principal amount of Rs. 6000 and then towards other amounts and nothing remained due from the judgment debtor. 11. Sub-rule (2) of 0.0X1 R.1 requires notice to be given to the decree- holder where payment is not made in court. Payment of the decretal amount into court operates as a satisfaction of the decree to that extent though no notice of payment is given to the decree holder as provided by sub-rule (2). But, one thing is very clear that when interest is awarded by the decree on the decretal amount,the decree holder is entitled to interest until he receives notice of the payment into court. In the present case, facts given by the court below are confusing and not clear. It has not given a clear finding as to whether the decree has been complied with in accordance with law or not. I, therefore, feel it appropriate to direct the court below to decide the case afresh. 12. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 25.1989 of the Additional District Judge No. I Jaipur City is quashed and he is directed to decide the case afresh according to law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall bear their own costs.Revision allowed. *******