JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Judge), Kurukshetra, who dismissed the objections of the petitioners. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- A money decree was passed in favour of the Bank against the present petitioners. The Bank got guarantee from the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation and received a sum of Rs. 60,443.36 from the said Corporation on 14.7.1987. The Bank filed the execution before the Executing Court. Objections were raised on behalf of the judgment-debtors that they are entitled to interest on the retention of the amount of Rs. 60,443.36 which was recovered by the Bank from the Corporation on behalf of the judgment debtors w.e.f. 14.7.1987 to 14.3.1992. The parties led evidence on the issue framed in that regard and on conclusion of the proceedings, the issue was decided against the petitioners vide impugned order dated 20.11.1998 mainly for the reasons given in para No. 9 of the order, which read as follows :- "9. As mentioned earlier there was no agreement between the JDs and DICGC and when there was no contract between the parties, regarding issuance, JDs cannot claim anything on account of it. JDs cannot avail any benefit of contract between DH bank and DICGC. In the instant case amount of claims received from DICGC was kept in collection account which has been named as claims received from DICGC in a separate ledger. It was not credited to the bad or protested account of the borrower immediately, because this amount was returned to DICGC after recovering the loan amount from the borrower. Therefore, amount in question was kept by DH bank in accordance with rules framed by the Bank and since there was no privity of contract between JD and DICGC. JDs are not entitled to the extent of interest of Rs. 60,443.36 recovered by the DH Bank from DICGC for the year 14.7.1987 to 14.3.1992. Thus issue No. 1 is decided against the objectors/JDs and in favour of respondent/DH Bank." 3. Not satisfied with the order, the present revision. 4. I have heard Mr. Y.K. Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No. 1 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 5. Thus issue No. 1 is decided against the objectors/JDs and in favour of respondent/DH Bank." 3. Not satisfied with the order, the present revision. 4. I have heard Mr. Y.K. Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No. 1 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 5. The frontal argument which was raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Bank admittedly received a sum of Rs. 60,443.36 from the Corporation. It had been debiting the premium in the account of the petitioners. The amount has been utilised by the Bank and in these circumstances, the Bank is entitled to give benefit of interest to the judgment debtors in their account. The learned Counsel wanted to convey that the Bank cannot be enriched twice i.e. by retaining the amount of Rs. 60,443.36 and also to debit the interest in the account of the judgment- debtors (now petitioners). On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the decree-holder/Bank submitted that the sum of Rs. 60,443.36 was received by the Bank and it was placed in the sundry account as per the condition of the contract executed between the Bank and the Corporation. On receipt of the decretal amount from the judgment-debtors, the Bank, under the agreement, was obliged to return that amount to the Corporation and the amount has been returned to the Corporation. Since the Bank has not taken any benefit of the amount of Rs. 60,443.36, therefore, the Bank is not entitled to pay any interest on this amount. Moreover, there was no privity of contract between the Bank and the Corporation that in the event of the receipt of the amount from the judgment-debtors, the Bank shall give benefit of interest on that amount to the petitioners. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that this revision is totally devoid of any merit. It has not been established on the record that the Bank invested the amount of Rs. 60,443.36 for its benefit. Rather, according to the evidence which has been placed on record, and as per the instructions of the RBI, the Bank was supposed to keep this amount in the sundry account. Moment the Bank receives any amount from the judgment-debtors, it was obliged to return the said amount to the Corporation. 60,443.36 for its benefit. Rather, according to the evidence which has been placed on record, and as per the instructions of the RBI, the Bank was supposed to keep this amount in the sundry account. Moment the Bank receives any amount from the judgment-debtors, it was obliged to return the said amount to the Corporation. The said amount since has been returned to the Corporation on receipt of some amount from the judgment-debtors. Moreover, there is no privity of contract between the parties that in the event of any reimbursement to the Bank from the Corporation, it shall pay interest to the judgment- debtors. 7. Faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the Bank had been debiting the amount of premium in the account of the judgment-debtors and in these circumstances it was obligatory on the part of the Bank to give the benefit of interest to the petitioners. This submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is again not acceptable. The Bank was supposed to protect its interest. It got the property insured, paid the premium and debited the sum in the account of the judgment-debtors. By virtue of that policy the Bank got a sum of Rs. 60,443.36 from the Corporation. The amount was retained in sundry account. It was never utilised by the Bank. Rather, this money was in the shape of trust with the Bank. Moment the Bank received some amount from the judgment-debtors, the sum of Rs. 60,443.36 was returned to the Corporation. In these circumstances, it cannot be held for the advantage of the petitioners that they are entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 60,443.36 w.e.f. 14.7.1987 to 14.3.1992 and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.