ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the calculations made by the Executing Court regarding the amount due and payable by the judgment debtor. The calculation shows that for the period from 2nd October, 2003 to 19th September, 2006, the interest has been calculated over an amount of Rs. 3,49,033/- which is principal amount of Rs. 2,97,050/- plus interest of Rs. 51,983/-. 2. I consider that the decree in this case is very clear and the Court while passing decree has awarded pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 15%. Court while passing decree had not clubbed pendent lite interest with the principal amount and had not allowed interest over pendent lite and principal amount. So the decree holder is entitled to interest of 15% only on the principal amount, i.e., Rs. 2,97,050/-. Thus, the interest over pendente lite interest has calculated by the Executing Court is without merits and only interest on Rs. 2,97.0501- should have been calculated from 2nd October, 2003 to 19th September, 2006. The payment received by the decree holder at any point of time is first to be adjusted against the interest costs and if anything balance is left out, then that is to be adjusted against the principal amount and the interest is to be calculated for future period on the leftout principal amount. 3. The Counsel for the respondent relied on judgment of 112 (2004) DLT 736=2004 V AD (Delhi) 375, Mis. Saraswati Construction Co. v. DDA, wherein this Court while making observation in respect of an award I decree based on award has held that once an award is passed, the future interest is to be calculated on the amount awarded which includes the pendente lite interest for the period when proceedings before the Arbitrator were pending. This is so in view of the specific provision of awarding interest under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as under the earlier Act. As far as decrees under CPC are concerned, an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and allow interest over the amount not allowed by the decree of the Court. Since the decree granted has not specifically stated that decree holder would be entitled to interest even on pendente lite interest, the pendente lite interest cannot be allowed. As far as decrees under CPC are concerned, an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and allow interest over the amount not allowed by the decree of the Court. Since the decree granted has not specifically stated that decree holder would be entitled to interest even on pendente lite interest, the pendente lite interest cannot be allowed. The Executing Court is directed to recalculate the amount and find out what is the balance amount payable by the judgment debtor. 4. The Counsel for the judgment debtor states that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 2lakh under the directions of the Appellate Court at the time of admission of the appeal and a credit of that amount should be given from the date of deposit by judgment debtor in the Appellate Court. This contention is mis-concealed. The condition put by the Appellate Court for admission of appeal cannot be considered as a step in satisfaction of decree or an amount received by decree holder. Unless and until the amount is paid to the decree holder either by the Court which directed for deposit of amount by the appellant or by the JD himself, the interest wont stop running. The interest would stop running only when the amount is received by JD. 5. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. The balance amount which is lying with Appellate Court along with whatever interest has accrued, be released in favour of JD. Petition disposed of.