JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J,—In the suit, filed by the plaintiff-decree holder, a decree for the recovery of Rs. 2,19,288.98 paise was passed against the defendants with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. 2. The decretal amount was further held to be payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 6,000 payable on or before 10th day of every month starting from August, 1986. it was further held that in case of default in the payment of any instalment by the stipulated date, the entire balance decretal amount will become recoverable in lump sum. 3. It is the execution of the aforesaid decree that is pending in this Court since 1987. 4. Scores of Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the parties and lot of time stands consumed in getting replies, rejoinders, etc. for the purposes of these Miscellaneous Applications and the matter has not yet finally ended. 5. OMP No. 453 of 1996 was filed by judgment-debtor No. 2 seeking permission to sell the property in order to satisfy the decretal amount. He was, consequently, permitted to negotiate the sale and application was allowed. 6. OMP No. 329/1995 was filed by the decree holder with the prayer for issuance of proclamation of sale in respect of the property belonging to judgment-debtor No. 2. Since judgment-debtor N. 2 has been permitted to negotiate the sale of the property himself, no orders were required to be passed on this application and it was dismissed vide order dated 6th June, 1997. 7. During the course of the hearing of the execution petition, it was pointed out by Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the judgment debtor No.,2 that the decree holder-bank is not supplying necessary particulars of the balance amount which is due to him and despite the courts repeated orders for filing true and correct accounts these were not furnished. 8. The statement of balance amount was ultimately filed on 25th March, 1997. Copy was supplied to the other side. Objections have been filed by judgment-debtor No. 2 to the statement of accounts. 9. It was agitated by judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 2 that the accounts furnished by the decree holder do not project ground realities and were incorrect. 10. Vide order dated 23rd June, 1997, the judgment debtors were directed to appear before the bank authorities to discuss the matter. 9. It was agitated by judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 2 that the accounts furnished by the decree holder do not project ground realities and were incorrect. 10. Vide order dated 23rd June, 1997, the judgment debtors were directed to appear before the bank authorities to discuss the matter. The judgment debtors appeared before the authorities concerned of the bank where the accounts were explained to them. 11. Again OMP No. 268/1997 was filed by the judgment debtors with the prayer that the decree-holder bank be directed to re-calculate the amount, so that the property be sold. Mr. Sharma agitated that the amount has not been calculated by the bank in accordance with the terms of the decree and the interest was to be charged only from the date of the decree that is 14th of July, 1986. 12. Learned Counsel appearing for the decree holder made a statement that the decree holder is prepared to remove the grievance of the judgment debtors and for that purpose they are welcome to appear on August 14, 1997 where the matter would be discussed after hearing the judgment debtors. 13. In pursuance of this offer the judgment debtors appeared before the authorities concerned and to them. The statement of accounts was got prepared by them from the agency of their Chartered Accountant and according to this statement of accounts, Mr. Sharma contended that he is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 72,000 only. 14. The matter was once again referred to the authorities of the decree holder-bank to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the judgment debtors in order to explain to them the true and correct position. This order is dated 26th August, 1997. 15. In sequence of the discussion held between the parties, a letter written by the Manager of the decree holder-bank, has been placed on record and Mr. Sharma having gone through the letter contends that no real opportunity was given to the judgment debtor and the figure arrived at by his Chartered Accountant is correct. 16. Vide order dated 19th September, 1997 the bank authorities were again directed to hear to the judgment debtors who will be accompanied by his Chartered Accountant and thereafter the matter be disposed of by a speaking order. 16. Vide order dated 19th September, 1997 the bank authorities were again directed to hear to the judgment debtors who will be accompanied by his Chartered Accountant and thereafter the matter be disposed of by a speaking order. The parties were directed to appear before the learned Registrar (Vig.) of this Court and officer of the bank was directed to be present with the desired record to explain the accounts. 17. It was noticed in the order dated 5th November, 1997 that the accounts have been explained to the judgment debtors and consequently, the case was ordered to be listed for arguments. Both the parties have placed on record their respective statement of accounts. 18. It is not denied by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at the bar that all the payments made by the judgment debtors stand duly credited in the accounts of the decree-holder-bank. From the side of the judgment debtors the grievance is being made that the payments made by them instead of being adjusted towards the principal amount due have been adjusted towards interest and costs. In further support of their contention reliance is placed by their learned Counsel on the provisions contained in Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is sought to be urged that the language in no uncertain terms suggests that the amount has to be first adjusted towards the decretal amount and not towards the interest. In further support of their contentions reliance is placed on Punjab National Bank v. Prem Sagar Chowdhry and others (1987 Sim. L.C., 243) and S. Surinder Singh v. Smt Sudesh Rani and others, (1991 (1) P.L.R. page 436). 19. Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the decree-holder-bank, in reply vehemently argues that the decree has been passed way back in the year 1986 and despite concessions have been granted by this Court to the judgment debtors to pay decretal amount by instalments, they have not paid amount and in the given situation, the decree holder-bank under the terms of he decree has the right and authority to recover entire balance decretal amount in lump sum. 20. Mr. 20. Mr. Sood further submits that time and again proclamations of sale in respect of the property of the judgment debtors have been issued and every time the judgment debtors have been moving frivolous application that they may be permitted to negotiate the sale of the property and the same be not sold through Court auction. Despite these concessions the amount is not being paid and the decree holder be permitted to recover the decretal amount in accordance with law. 21. Mr. Sood further contends that it is for the decree holder-bank to adjust the amounts received from the judgment debtors in the manner it is deemed fit and in further support of the argument reliance is being placed on Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited and another (A.I.R. 1995 S.C.page 1572) and an un-reported judgment passed by the then Honble Chief Justice of this Court in CR No. 166 of 1993 titled as : United Commercial Bank v. Jeet Ram and another, decided by this Court on 22nd August, 1997. 22. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the record and the case law cited, I find that the contentions being raised from the side of the judgment debtors are not correct. While noticing these provisions contained in Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court in its judgment reported in 1987 Sim. L.C. page 243 has laid down that under Sub-rule (3), the decree holder is to be furnished full particulars about the payments that are tendered. The law as it stood prior and after the amendment was noticed viz-a-viz, the provisions contained in Section 60 of the Contract Act. In para 5 it is said that payment can be made either in the Court or according to the directions of the Court and the judgment debtor has to give notice of the said payment to the decree holder and once such amount is paid through Court, interest has to cease to run from the said date. While concluding, it was held that in view of the amendment it is no longer open to the decree holder to appropriate payments received by him to that part of the decretal amount which does not bear any interest. While concluding, it was held that in view of the amendment it is no longer open to the decree holder to appropriate payments received by him to that part of the decretal amount which does not bear any interest. It was further held that such payments shall first be applied towards part of the decretal amount which bears interest, if any. In the other judgment that has been cited that is 1991(1) P.L.R., page 436, the question had arisen in respect of a money decree which was passed along with interest. By an order of the Court the decretal amount was permitted to be paid in instalments. A case was made out by judgment debtor that he has actually paid more amount than what was due and was entitled to refund of the balance. The case of the decree holder was that the judgment debtor still owed further amount. In peculiar facts of that case it was found that the payments have been first to be adjusted towards principal amount and then interest. 23. In the unreported judgment passed by this Court a similar question came up for consideration. The judgment reported in 1987 Sim. L.C, 243 also came up for consideration as a reliance was being placed on this judgment by the judgment debtors. In this case decree was passed on the basis of compromise, Rs. 20,000/- were deposited on the date of the decree and the balance was agreed to be deposited on the given dates. The decree was passed with costs and future interest. In the execution, statement of accounts was filed. Similar objections were raised by the judgment debtors that the bank had wrongly adjusted payments made by judgment debtors towards the interest. It was commented that the question which was decided in 1987 Sim. L.C, page 243 in abstract, without reference, to the facts of any case. As I look at the matter, the contention raised there was that it is the judgment debtor who is to indicate as to how the amount paid is to be adjusted. Interestingly, in the present case there was no indication by judgment debtors while making payments that it is desired by them that the amounts be adjusted towards the principal. 24. Interestingly, in the present case there was no indication by judgment debtors while making payments that it is desired by them that the amounts be adjusted towards the principal. 24. In the unreported judgment, a judgment passed by the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1970 SC 161 titled Meghraj v. Bahyabai, dealing with similar point was also noticed and it was commented that the Supreme Court judgment continues to be food law even after the amendment. 25. As I look at the matter the question relates to appropriation of different amounts and the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 1 are not even remotely attracted. Even if, for argument sake these provisions are looked into it only means that where excess payment is made, that is, over the one which is due, it is only then it has to be adjusted towards the principal and the question of any interest on it would not arise. 26. By no means it can be held that if the interest which has been allowed to accummulate and is in excess of the amount which is paid by judgment debtors, it is his option to get it adjusted towards the principal and interest on it thereafter would stop to accure. 27. Notice may also be taken to another judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1995 SC page 1572. It was held in this case that notice of the deposit of decretal amount in Court if not given to the decree holder and when there is no intimation about the manner of appropriation the deposit made cannot be taken towards the principal simply because the deposit has been made in pursuance of the order passed by the Court, Judgment reported in A.I.R. 1970 SC 161 was followed. 28. In view of what has been said above, the objections raised by judgment debtors are ill-founded and are rejected. The decree holder is at liberty to proceed according to law.