Judgment ( 1. ) IT is a revision filed by the Decree-holder (claimant) against the order, dated 26-2-1999, passed by learned 1st Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in Claim Case No. 137/92-95, whereby his application that award put in execution has not been fully satisfied and some more amount is required to be paid/deposited by the judgment debtor was rejected. ( 2. ) PETITIONER has obtained an award in one claim case against the respondent. His grievance is that full decretal amount is not deposited by the judgment debtor, i. e. , Insurance Company and if proper calculation is made, keeping in view the directions contained in the award, some more amount is required to be paid by the judgment debtor. The petitioner has given his full calculation in his execution application as to how and on what basis, he says that he is still entitled to recover more amount towards full satisfaction of the award in question. The judgment debtor has only denied the calculation. ( 3. ) IN my opinion, the Executing Court while dismissing the application made by the petitioner committed an error. It was obligatory upon the Executing Court to apply its mind to the details submitted by the petitioner and then should have come to its conclusion as to whether calculation given by the petitioner is in confirmity with the award in question and whether deposits made by the respondent (Insurance Company) can be regarded as deposit made in full and final satisfaction of an award so as to give a final certificate of an award being satisfied fully. ( 4. ) WHENEVER, a litigant supplies the details of his Case/claim, it is the duty of the Court to deal with it in his order and then give its finding whether it deserves acceptance, or not ? It must appear from the order that he has applied mind to the facts set up by both parties and not in relation to one party. If the decree remains unsatisfied, it is the right of the decree-holder to get its execution for the balance. ( 5. ) COMING to facts of the case as I have observed supra, the learned Executing Court while rejecting the application made by the petitioner (decree holder) did not appear to have applied his mind to the details submitted by the petitioner. ( 5. ) COMING to facts of the case as I have observed supra, the learned Executing Court while rejecting the application made by the petitioner (decree holder) did not appear to have applied his mind to the details submitted by the petitioner. It may be that despite those details a finding could be returned against the petitioner or even in his favour. But in any case, it is for the Executing Court to determine with reference to the award, the details furnished by the petitioner and also by the judgment debtor. Since this exercise was not done by the Executing Court and hence, impugned order is liable to be set-aside. ( 6. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, the revision succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The Executing Court will decide the application made by the petitioner in the light of observations so made by this Court supra, and then pass orders. Let this be done within a month. C. C. within a week.