JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.--This is an appeal that arises under the Arbitration Act and the Government has challenged the order of the learned Civil Judge, Yadgir in Arbitration Suit No. 19 of 1993. The appeal was admitted in the year 1995 and the record indicates that sometime in the year 1997 the whole of the amount due to the Respondent was paid to him and the discharge receipt was obtained by the department that this is in full and final settlement of all his claims. 2. The learned Government Advocate has shown us the letter dated 19.10.1996 addressed by the office of the Chief Engineer, KBJNL, Operation and Maintenance Zone, Narayanapur wherein the instructions to the learned Government Advocate are to the effect that the challenge be confined only to the interest quantum. Apparently, as we are informed since there are references to the communications from the Solicitor and Ex. Officio Under-Secretary to Government, the merits were re-examined and the opinion given to the department appears to have been that a challenge on merits as far as the main heads of the award are concerned was unnecessary and unjustified in so far as the Appellants would have to accept the correctness of the earlier order but that there was something that could be argued on the question of the award of interest. Having regard to these instructions, the learned Government Advocate advanced his submissions on the question of interest. 3. The Respondent's learned Advocate who is present in Court raised an interesting point of law in so far as he submits that during the pendency of this appeal if the Appellants have reconsidered the question and have voluntarily satisfied the decree, perhaps on the basis of legal opinion or otherwise that this appeal becomes infructuous in so far as no further challenge survives. The interesting point raised by him was that if the payment was made either under the orders of the Court or if the payment was made after obtaining the leave of the Court and after pointing out that this payment was being made without prejudice to the rights of the Appellants to contest the appeal on merits even if it is restricted to the grant of interest that then alone could they request this Court to adjudicate that issue. The extension of this submission is to the effect that if the Appellants have satisfied the decree of the Court without obtaining the leave of the Court and without keeping their rights alive that they are estopped from further agitating any of the issues that are the subject matter of the appeal. The learned Government Advocate sought to counter the argument by contending that even if in a given case the Appellant deposits the money in Court in satisfaction of a decree or award and even if the opposite party is allowed to withdraw that amount that this would not in law disqualify the Appellant from agitating the disputed arrears on merits and if the Appellant succeeds that it is always open to institute recovery proceedings. In theory, there is some justification in this latter argument but that will not come to the assistance of the Appellants in the present case for the simple reason that it was obligatory on them to have pointed out to the Court before which the appeal was pending that the satisfaction of the decree was without prejudice to the rights of the Appellants to agitate the interest question. We need to further qualify that in the present facts and circumstances the appeal has become infructuous the moment the decree was satisfied since no leave of the Court was obtained to keep the appeal alive and our recording any findings with regard to the award of interest would be nothing short of academic. Furthermore, it would lead to the highly unsatisfactory situation of having to direct a refund of the amount already received by the Respondents which in our considered view is not something that is feasible on the facts of the present case. We have however brought it to the notice of the learned Government Advocate that he must however convey a copy of this order to the department and that the Government should look into the question as to how and under what circumstances, if an appeal had been filed and had been admitted by this Court the departmental officers not only arrived at an out of Court settlement but also paid such a large amount of money which included the interest of over Rs.Forty Five Lakhs. We have taken into consideration the fact that it may be that some legal opinion was obtained but this is not good enough because in that event that opinion should have been placed before the High Court as a ground for the payment and the appeal ought to have been withdrawn. This was not done and the reason why we mention it is because on such a course of action being contemplated the learned Judges before whom the application came would have had the opportunity of scrutinising as to whether the Government was right or not in conceding the claim regardless of whatever opinions there might have been on record. In saying this we only express our sense of responsibility for the manner in which public funds are disbursed by the department and even at this stage, the Government would do well to examine the record of the case and to take a decision as to whether what has happened meets with the approval of the Government or not. 4. On merits however, in view of what we have indicated despite the learned Government Advocate advancing his submissions on merits on the question of award of interest, we hold that there is no scope for this Court to record any findings. In that view of the matter, the appeal to stand disposed of with no order as to costs.