JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - On 21.5.1977, Mukhtiar Singh (respondent herein) executed an agreement to sell his house No. 171 Sector 20-A, Chandigarh with Sh. M.L. Goel and his wife Mrs. Swarn Goel (petitioners herein) for a sum of Rs. 78,000/-. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to Mukhitar Singh by M.L. Goel and his wife Swaran Goel on 21.5.1977. He was to execute sale-deed on or before 21.9.1977. Another sum of Rs. 9000/- was paid to Mukhtiar Singh on 20.9.1977. Mukhtiar Singh backed out of the bargain. M.L. Goel and his wife filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell which was decreed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh on 28.5.1981. Judgment was affirmed in first appeal by the High Court. 2. On appeal by Mukhtiar Singh, the Honble Supreme Court stayed his dispossession till the final disposal of the appeal by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana accordingly stayed the dispossession of Mukhtiar Singh subject to payment of mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of the house. On 9.3.1983 appeal of Mukhtiar Singh was dismissed by this Court. LPA No. 333 of 1983 filed by Mukhtiar Singh was also dismissed on 25.3.1983. In consequence, possession of the house was to be delivered to M.L. Goel and his wife. In execution proceedings, compromise took place. Under the compromise, Mukhtiar Singh undertook to deliver vacant possession of the house by 18.7.1983. He also under-took to pay Rs. 1200/- as damages/mesne profits for the use and occupation of the house till the delivery of possession to them. He actually paid damage at that rate up to 17.4.1983. They took possession of the entire house in October, 1983 through the Court. M.L. Goel and his wife filed Civil Suit. No. 69 of 9.3.1984 against Mukhtiar Singh for the recovery of Rs. 22,000/- (Rs. 7700/- as damages for the unauthorised use and occupation of that house with effect from 18.4.1983 to 31.10.1983 at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month plus Rs. 1200/- as damages caused to the house before its vacation and a sum of Rs. 1063/- as water and electricity charges and Rs. 1237/- as interest @ 18% per annum on the above said amount. 3. Vide order dated 29.9.1986 Sub-Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh decreed their suit for the recovery of Rs. 1200/- per month plus Rs. 1200/- as damages caused to the house before its vacation and a sum of Rs. 1063/- as water and electricity charges and Rs. 1237/- as interest @ 18% per annum on the above said amount. 3. Vide order dated 29.9.1986 Sub-Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh decreed their suit for the recovery of Rs. 20,575/- in their favour and against him (Mukhtiar Singh) with proportionate costs and also burdened him with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till payment. 4. M.L. Goel and his wife put in execution application for executing the decree for specific performance. During the pendency of the execution application before the executing Court, parties arrived compromise. 5. For the disposal of the revision in hand, the following Clauses of that compromise are relevant : Clause No. 4 : That the judgment-debtor-Mukhtiar Singh undertakes to deliver the vacant possession of the whole house No. 171, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh on or before the 18.7.1988 and the execution application be adjourned to 18.7.1983. In case the judgment-debtor does not vacate the premises i.e. House No. 171, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh and deliver the vacant possession of House on or before 18.7.1983, warrants of possession will be issued immediately and the judgment-debtor will not have any objection whatsoever and the judgment-debtor will also be liable for further proceedings under the provision of law. Clause No. 5 : That the damages at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month as directed by the Honble High Court in R.F.A. No. 842 of 1981 have been settled from 18th February, 1982 to 17th April, 1983, which comes to Rs. 16,800/- and the cost of R.F.A. comes to Rs. 1500/-. In this way the judgment-debtor Shri Mukhtiar Singh will pay sum of Rs. 18,300/- and this will be withdrawn by the decree holder, M.L. Goel from the Court of Shri L.R. Roojam out of the amount lying deposited in the said Court towards the balance consideration and the judgment-debtor will withdrawn the remaining amount. Clause No. 6 : That the judgment-debtor will pay further damages at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month till he delivers the vacant possession of the house in question to the decree-holder. Clause No. 7 : That a sum of Rs. Clause No. 6 : That the judgment-debtor will pay further damages at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month till he delivers the vacant possession of the house in question to the decree-holder. Clause No. 7 : That a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by the judgment-debtor under precarious circumstances in the account of Shri M.L. Goel one of the decree-holders and the said amount is lying in his SB Account No. 275 maintained at the State Bank of Patiala, Evening Branch, Sector 17, Chandigarh. In case, the judgment-debtor delivers the vacant possession in accordance with the compromise referred to above on or before 18th July, 1983, M.L. Goel decree-holder will issue a cheque for the said amount alongwith interest at the Bank rate in favour of the judgment-debtor and judgment-debtor will be entitled to withdraw the said amount. In case the judgment-debtor does not deliver the vacant possession according to the compromise as referred to above, the JD will not be entitled to the said amount. 6. As per clause No. 7 of the compromise, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was to be refunded by M.L. Goel and his wife to Mukhtiar Singh in case the latter had delivered the vacant possession on or before 18.7.1983 with interest at the bank rate. In case the judgment-debtor did not deliver the vacant possession according to compromise, the judgment-debtor would not be entitled to the refund of Rs. 40,000/-. Mukhtiar Singh did not deliver the vacant possession in terms of compromise. The possession was obtained by them on 31.10.1983. Mukhitar Singh filed an application for the refund of Rs. 40,000/-. They took objection that in terms of clause No. 7 of the compromise, amount was to be forfeited and the executing Court accepted their objection and dismissed the application of Mukhtiar Singh. 7. Mukhtiar Singh filed civil revision No. 636 of 1984 in this Court. CIvil Revision No. 636 of 1984 was decided by this Court on 5.5.1989. The said decision is reported as Mukhtiar Singh v. M.L. Goel, (1989-2)96 PLR 93. It was held that clause No. 7 of the compromise was penal in nature and that clause could not be enforced. M.L. Goel was directed to return the amount with interest at the Bank rate within a period of one month from today i.e. 5.5.1989 failing which JD will be entitled to execute this order dated 5.5.1989. It was held that clause No. 7 of the compromise was penal in nature and that clause could not be enforced. M.L. Goel was directed to return the amount with interest at the Bank rate within a period of one month from today i.e. 5.5.1989 failing which JD will be entitled to execute this order dated 5.5.1989. Clause No. 7 of the compromise under which Mukhtiar Singh-JD was obliged to deliver the vacant possession within specified period, failing which M.L. Goel was entitled to forfeit the amount was held to be penal in nature. It was observed that the DH i.e. M.L. Goel was enforcing the penalty. He was attempting to get more than what he was entitled to at the institution of the suit, Mukhtiar Singh relived of this default clause i.e. clause No. 7. 8. Mukhtiar Singh filed an application before the executing Court seeking interest on the amount of Rs. 40,000/- Vide order dated 14.11.1991 (Annexure P-2), M.L. Goel was directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum on or before 7.12.1991. M.L. Goel deposited a sum of Rs. 59,666/- (Rs. 40,000/- as principal and Rs. 19666.66 paise as interest). 9. Mukhtiar Singh challenged order Annexure P-2 by way of Civil Revision No. 873 of 1992. Vide order dated 2.3.1994 (Annexure P-3), this Court remanded the matter to the executing Court to re-determine rate of interest. No future interest was awarded. During the proceedings in the High Court no claim was laid for the grant of future interest and nor was the order of executing Court impugned on the ground that it had not awarded future interest. After the remand, the executing Court determined the rate of interest of 10% per annum. The said order is dated 22.8.1984 (Annexure P-4). 10. In the order dated 22.8.1994, it was held that the Bank rate was 10% per annum, which Mukhtiar Singh is entitled to recover from M.L. Goel. 11. Vide order dated 5.6.1995, the executing Court directed that a sum of Rs. 27449.34 (Rs. 20333.34 + 7116) was payable by M.L. Goel and up to day i.e. 5.6.1995. M.L. Goel was given time to pay the amount by 8.8.1995 failing which it was ordered that warrant of attachment would be issued for 8.9.1995. It was ordered that Rs. 170/- will be added every month as interest on Rs. 27449.34 (Rs. 20333.34 + 7116) was payable by M.L. Goel and up to day i.e. 5.6.1995. M.L. Goel was given time to pay the amount by 8.8.1995 failing which it was ordered that warrant of attachment would be issued for 8.9.1995. It was ordered that Rs. 170/- will be added every month as interest on Rs. 20,333.34 from 5.6.1995 onwards till the amount was finally paid. It is this order dated 5.6.1995 which has been called in question through this revision by M.L. Goel and his wife. Their grievance is that no future interest was awarded by the Court which passed the decree. If the Court which passed the decree did not award future interest, the executing Court could not award future interest. 12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that is the LRs to late M.L. Goel that the award of future interest was awarded by the Court which passed the decree, no future interest can be awarded by the executing Court. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Section 34(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under : "Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of future interest (on such principal sum) from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit, therefore, shall not lie". 13. It was submitted that if no future interest was ever granted in the case, no future interest could be granted by the executing Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner - M.L. Goel had deposited Rs. 40,000/- as back as on 7.12.1991 and also paid interest to the tune of Rs. 19666.66 up to 31.10.1991. It was submitted that M.L. Goel was not bound to pay interest of the tune of Rs. 19666.66 up to 31.10.1991. It was further submitted that the executing Court, had even granted interest on interest. The executing Court has granted compound interest. It was further submitted that against the application for the grant of interest filed by Mukhtiar Singh before the executing Court, M.L. Goel had filed objections in which he had stated that future interest could not be granted. This objection remained un-decided as also the other objections regarding charging of interest etc. remained undecided. 14. It was further submitted that against the application for the grant of interest filed by Mukhtiar Singh before the executing Court, M.L. Goel had filed objections in which he had stated that future interest could not be granted. This objection remained un-decided as also the other objections regarding charging of interest etc. remained undecided. 14. In my opinion, award of interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of Rs. 20,333.34 ps., after the amount had been worked out with interest on Rs. 40,000/- minus the amount of decree held by M.L. Goel and his wife passed by Sh. D.K. Monga, Sub-Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh was adjusted with effect from 5.6.1995 onwards cannot be said to be illegal. M.L. Goel withdrawn the amount of Rs. 40,000/- deposited in his account by Mukhtiar Singh on 21.11.1981. Since 2.12.1981, M.L. Goel was using this amount. In the amount of decree passed in favour of M.L. Goel and his wife by Sh. D.K. Monga, SJIC, Chandigarh on 29.9.1988 for Rs. 20575/-, future interest towards 6% per annum was awarded from the date of suit till payment, when the decree for possession through specific performance was compromised. M.L. Goel undertook to issue a cheque in the amount of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest at the Bank rate in favour of Mukhtiar Singh. The executing Court interpreted the Bank rate at 10% per annum. Intention of clause - 7 was that Mukhtiar Singh is entitled to the amount of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the Bank rate till the amount was paid to him. In equity also, award of interest at the rate of 10% per annum to Mukhtiar Singh was not exorbitant. 15. For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.