H. R. MALHOTRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20. 1. 2004 rendered by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellants/decree holder was awarded interest @ 12% p. a. on the principal amount of Rs. 4,03,977/- in terms of the award dated 23. 2. 1995 which was subsequently made a rule of the court vide order dated 24. 9. 2001 where the court directed the respondent/judgment debtors to pay interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of decree till the date of realization of the amount in favour of the decree holder. ( 2 ) DISSATISFIED with the rate of interest @ 12% p. a. as confirmed by the learned Single Judge in terms of the decree dated 24. 9. 2001, the appellant has challenged the same by way of filing this appeal. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants/decree holder that the learned Single Judge misinterpreted the award made by the arbitrator where the arbitrator clearly indicated that ?in most of the cases it takes long time to make payment to the claimants of the award amount, I therefore, award claimants to be paid interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of publishing this award till date on which payment is actually made to him?. On the strength of these observations, the appellants/decree holder contended that the arbitrator had, in fact, awarded compound interest and not the simple interest and therefore, according to them learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the decree holder was entitled to the simple interest @ 12% p. a. and not the compound interest. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/judgment debtor urged that the appellants were not entitled to claim beyond the decree passed in their favour as they cannot claim more than what was allowed to them in the award and more particularly when award was made rule of the court by virtue of the judgment dated 24. 09. 2001 which was not even assailed and thus, the decision attained finality. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also looked into the impugned order dated 20. 1. 2004 Whatelse is perused by us is the claims No. 7 and 15 which relate to the claim of interest. 09. 2001 which was not even assailed and thus, the decision attained finality. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also looked into the impugned order dated 20. 1. 2004 Whatelse is perused by us is the claims No. 7 and 15 which relate to the claim of interest. ( 5 ) TRUE, the claimants/decree holder had claimed compound interest but what was awarded to them was the simple interest @ 12% p. a. and this is so manifest in the award where the arbitrator in clear terms used the expression of simple interest @ 12% p. a. ( 6 ) WE fail to understand as to from where the appellants/decree holder gathered the impression that they were entitled to compound interest particularly when the award so passed by the learned arbitrator and subsequently made rule of the court, and therefore, it attained finality which was not assailed by the appellants. ( 7 ) LEARNED Single judge, to our mind, awarded the simple interest @ 12% p. a. strictly in terms of the award and the decree subsequently where awarded interest was @ 12% p. a. There is absolutely no mention anywhere either in the award or any where else that the decree holder was entitled to compound interest @ 12% p. a. ( 8 ) WE find no merits in the appeal, impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge being quite in order and therefore, no ground exists for interfering in the impugned order. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal being devoid of any substance and merit, is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed as such. No order as to costs.