JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.This appeal is directed against the order dated 10th December, 98 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Shri Ganganagar in civil suit no. 147/94. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge held that the amount of Rs. 61,300/- deposited by the defendant in the Court fully satisfied claim of the plaintiff. The prayer for award of interest from the date of filing of the plaint to the date of deposit of amount of Rs. 61,300/- by the defendant in the Court was rejected in view of the decision given by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Central Bank of India v. M/s. Amaan Travels 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 439 . The amount of Rs. 61,300/- included the court fee, the fee paid to the counsel by the plaintiff and miscellaneous expenses. 2. In S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 40/88 Central Bank of India v. Amaan Travels, decided on 9th August, 88 , a learned Single Judge of this Court interpreted Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code and held that the language of Section 34 CPC makes it clear that the Court can exercise the discretion of awarding pendente lite and future interest under section 34 "where and so far as a decree is for payment of money". It was further held by the learned Single Judge that these words clearly go to show that the discretion under section 34 can only be exercised when there is a decree tor payment of money. In that case, the entire term loan had been repaid by the respondent no. 1 to the plaintiff bank during the pendency of the suit and no decree was passed by the trial Court for payment of money. Consequently, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the provision of Section 34 C.RC. are not attracted and the trial court could not order for interest pendente lite future interest. 3. 1 to the plaintiff bank during the pendency of the suit and no decree was passed by the trial Court for payment of money. Consequently, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the provision of Section 34 C.RC. are not attracted and the trial court could not order for interest pendente lite future interest. 3. The legal question "whether the liability of a defendant in a money suit to pay interest gets discharged by his depositing during the pendency of the suit, the suit amount" has been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court to a Larger Bench by order dated 12th August, 97 passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 130/97 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Abdul Wahid , though the ratio of the decision given by the learned Single Judge in Central Bank of India v. M/s. Amaan Travels (supra) is based on the footing that where the defendant in a money suit makes payment of money during the pendency of the suit, a decree is not to be passed, and therefore, Section 34 CPC has no application. The question whether the order regarding full satisfaction of the claim by the Court amounts to a decree or not does not appear to have been decided finally in the case. 4. In order, this appeal may be held to be maintainable, it is necessary for the appellant to show that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge amounts to judgment and decree, though no formal decree has been taken. Order 24 CPC deals with the payment into Court. Rule 1 of Order 24 provides that the defendant in any suit to recover a debt or damages may, at any stage of the suit, deposit in Court such sum of money as he considers a satisfaction in full of the claim. Rule 2 of Order 24 provides that notice of the deposit shall be given through the Court by the defendant to the plaintiff and the amount of the deposit shall (unless the Court otherwise directs) be paid to the plaintiff on his application. Rule 3 provides that no interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on any sum deposited by the defendant from the date of the receipt of such notice, whether the sum deposited is in full of the claim or falls short thereof. Rule 3 provides that no interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on any sum deposited by the defendant from the date of the receipt of such notice, whether the sum deposited is in full of the claim or falls short thereof. Rule 4 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Court, it reads- "R. 4. Procedure where plaintiff accepts deposit as satisfaction in part. (1) Where the plaintiff accepts, such amount as satisfaction in part only of his claim, he may prosecute his suit for the balance, and if the Court decides that the deposit by the defendant was a full satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit incurred after the deposit and the costs incurred previous thereto, so far as they were caused by excess in the plaintiff's claim, Procedure where he accepts it as satisfaction in full. (2) Where the plaintiff accepts such amount as satisfaction in full of his claim, he shall present to the Court a statement to that effect, and such statement shall be filed and the Court shall pronounce judgment, accordingly, and, in directing by whom the costs of each party are to be paid, the Court shall consider which of the parties is most to blame for the litigation." 5. A bare reading of Rule 4 of Order 24 CPC shows that sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 deals with the cases in which the amount deposited by the defendant is accepted by the plaintiff as satisfaction in part only of his claim. In such cases, the plaintiff is entitled to prosecute his suit for the balance, which remains unsatisfied. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Section 24 CPC deals with the cases in which the amount deposited by the defendant has accepted by the plaintiff as satisfaction in full of his claim. In such cases, the plaintiff is required to file statement and the Court is required to pronounce the judgment according to the statement filed by the plaintiff accepting the amount deposited by the defendant as satisfied in full of his claim. In such cases, the plaintiff is required to file statement and the Court is required to pronounce the judgment according to the statement filed by the plaintiff accepting the amount deposited by the defendant as satisfied in full of his claim. Thus, Rule 4 of Order 24 CPC clearly indicates that where the defendant deposits any amount in the Court under sub-rule (1) of order 24 CPC, whether the amount deposited by him fully satisfies the claim of the plaintiff or partly satisfies the claim, the judgment is required to be given by the Court. If the plaintiff accepts the amount deposited by the defendant as satisfaction in full of his claim and files the statement required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 24, the judgment is to be delivered then and there according to the statement filed by the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the plaintiff accepts the amount deposited by the defendant as satisfaction in part of his claim, the plaintiff may prosecute his suit for the balance and his claim for the balance is to be adjudicated by the Court in accordance with law and a judgment is to be given and a decree is to be prepared. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, in view of. the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Order 24 CPC, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge must be regarded as a final judgment delivered by the Court in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4-of Order 24 CPC. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order must be regarded as a judgment necessitating the preparation of a decree against which an appeal lies under section 96 CPC. 7. Since the question relating to the liability of the defendant to pay interest on the amount claimed by the plaintiff has already been referred to a Larger Bench, this appeal is admitted. 8. Issue notices to the respondents. Record of the case be called. The notice shall be returnable within six weeks.Appeal Admitted-Notices Issued. *******