S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision application is directed against the order of the 4th Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Rajkot dated 28th July 1995, in Execution Application No. 9 of 1993 below ex. 1, whereunder the court ordered that the defendant should pay interest to the plaintiff at the rate of 18% simple interest on the principal amount of Rs. 5,00,031=75 ps. from 7. 12. 1990 till its realization with costs as decreed. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case which are necessary for deciding this revision application are to be briefly stated. On the basis of its claim arising from contract of transportation of food grains and fertilizers from various parts in Gujarat to depots and storage places of the respondent-Corporation, the plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit on 3. 5. 79 for recovery of Rs. 16,59,940=96 as per its bills which remained unpaid from 25th July 1976 including the claim of interest at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs. 4,55,940/=. This suit came to be registered as Special Civil Suit No. 74 of 1979 in the court of Civil Judge (S. D.) at Rajkot. The defendant-respondent raised a contention regarding arbitration clause in the contract between the parties and the matter of the suit came to be referred to the Joint Secretary, Government of India and the arbitrator made the award in the matter on 7. 12. 90. This award was made rule of the court on 21st October 1992. The decree was put in execution and therein the following claims have been made. : 1. Award as per decree 6,00,031. 75 2. Interest at the rate of 3,06,000. 00 18% p. a. from 25. 7. 76 to 3. 5. 79 3. Interest at the rate of 18% 14,76,000. 00 till date from 3. 5. 79 4. Costs awarded as per decree 23,707. 00 5. Process and Warrant fee 12. 50 6. Darkhast and advocate fee 2,200. 00 - TOTAL Rs. 24,07,951. 50ps ============= ( 3 ) IT is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the amount of Rs. 6,00,031. 75 has been paid. The dispute now pertains to the claim of interest at the rate of 18% p. a. till the date from 3. 5. 79. The claim of Rs. 3,06,000. 00, i. e. interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from 25th July, 1976 to 3. 5. 6,00,031. 75 has been paid. The dispute now pertains to the claim of interest at the rate of 18% p. a. till the date from 3. 5. 79. The claim of Rs. 3,06,000. 00, i. e. interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from 25th July, 1976 to 3. 5. 79 has been given up. The executing court has not awarded interest to the petitioner on the ground that from which date, interest is payable has not been mentioned in the award or decree of the court. The petitioner filed civil revision application No. 895 of 1993 which was decided on 22nd March, 1995. This court held that it would not have been any difficulty for the executing court to find out from which date interest is payable to the decree-holder. The matter was remanded back to the executing court to decide the issue from which date interest is payable to the decree-holder. Under the impugned order, as said earlier, the executing court held that interest is payable from 7th December, 1990, i. e. the date of the award and accordingly it is ordered. Hence this civil revision application. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the award is clear and therein interest has been awarded to the plaintiff-petitioner. Award has been made Rule of the Court and under decree also interest has been awarded to the petitioner. For the purpose of ascertaining from which date interest is to be awarded, the executing court has all the powers to look into the pleadings of the parties. Here what Mr. Shah contended that the petitioner made claim for the pendente-lite and future interest in the plaint and the plaint has been referred to the arbitrator and the arbitrator has also awarded interest. In his submission the petitioner should have been awarded interest from the date of filing of the suit, i. e. from 3. 5. 79. In the award, this has to be read the date from which interest is payable. It is urged that though for past interest the petitioner was also entitled but that claim has been given up. To fortify his contention, Mr. Shah has read out the operative part of the award, the operative part of the decree and judgment of this court given in civil revision application No. 895 of 1993. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. To fortify his contention, Mr. Shah has read out the operative part of the award, the operative part of the decree and judgment of this court given in civil revision application No. 895 of 1993. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. P. C. Kavina, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the executing court has interpreted the decree and has rightly held that interest is payable to the petitioner only from the date of the award and not from the date of filing of the suit. It has next been contended that it is a question of fact and when on the appreciation of the material produced before the court below, it has recorded a finding of fact, to which this court may not interfere. Referring to the decision of this court given in earlier civil revision application, Mr. Kavina urged that this court has remanded the matter to find out from which date interest has to be paid to the petitioner. The court has not held that interest is payable to the petitioner from the date of filing of the suit. In his submission, it is not a case where this court may interfere with the order of the executing court. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) EARLIER the executing court has not awarded any interest to the petitioner on the ground that in the award and decree it has not been mentioned from which date this interest is payable. The matter has come up before this court. I find that this court has held that the award of the arbitrator, if properly read, provides sufficient guidelines to the executing court for deciding the date from which interest is payable and to ascertain this date, the matter has been remanded. The operative part of the award is there on the record, which reads as under:"in the final result, the respondent, ie. the FCI would pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,031. 75ps. to the claimant-M/s. Gurukrupa Transport Corpn. , Jamnagar. The respondent would also pay simple interest at the rate of 18% p. a. on that amount till the amount is paid to the claimant or till the decree of the court. the FCI would pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,031. 75ps. to the claimant-M/s. Gurukrupa Transport Corpn. , Jamnagar. The respondent would also pay simple interest at the rate of 18% p. a. on that amount till the amount is paid to the claimant or till the decree of the court. " ( 8 ) FROM the reading of these two documents, I find that the arbitrator has awarded interest but has not very specifically mentioned from which date the interest is payable. It is mentioned in award that the respondent is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% simple interest per annum on the awarded amount til the amount is paid to the claimant. This has been taken from the certified copy of the judgment of the court below. There is some difference in the operative part of the award and judgment but the judgment has to be taken to be final. The starting date of interest was not given but it is mentioned that till the amount is paid, the interest has to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at the rate of 18% p. a. simple interest. In the absence of this, this date could have been the date on which the award has been made. This award nowhere contemplates of giving pendente-lite interest and it cannot be read in the award as well as decree. The decree says that interest is payable on the awarded amount till the amount is paid to the claimant. So the starting point is the date on which the award is made and the ending point is the date on which payment is made. The learned executing court has not committed any error much less a material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in reaching to this conclusion. It is a matter of interpretation and the meaning which could be given to the award and decree of the court and rightly it has been held so. The claim of interest from the date of filing of the suit is accepted then in the award and decree the court has to read that interest is awarded from the date of filing of the suit which is not there. The court cannot read something which is not there in the award. The claim of interest from the date of filing of the suit is accepted then in the award and decree the court has to read that interest is awarded from the date of filing of the suit which is not there. The court cannot read something which is not there in the award. The executing court has interpreted the award and therefrom only the date which could have been ascertained is the date on which the award has been made. The order of the court below is perfectly legal and justified to which no interference is called for. ( 9 ) IN the result, this civil revision application fails and the same is dismissed with costs. .