JUDGMENT: SANJIB BANERJEE, J (1.) These matters have seen more than the fair share of confusion that is associated with execution proceedings. Between the judgment-debtors attempt to depress figures and the decree-holder financiers insatiable craving for interest, there is the understandable yawning gap between what is claimed to be due by the decree-holder and the refund claimed by, the judgment-debtors. But the disarray in both ranks, the disagreement between the two sides on the interpretation of a simple mistaken reference in the consent terms and the inexplicable confusion over documents and dates leading to waste of Court time have been the avoidable impediments. (2.) Arbitration references made in respect of two hire purchase agreements of July 23, 1999 and February 24, 2001 were disposed of by terms of settlement filed before the arbitral tribunal on December 12, 2003. Under the agreement of 1999 the decree-holder had financed an excavator and under the agreement of 2001 the decree-holder had financed two pay-loaders which, for convenience, may be referred to by the last three digits of their identification numbers -299 and 301. In the opening page of the body of the terms of settlement the 2001 agreement was referred to as the first agreement and the other as the second agreement. In the fourth page of the terms where the amounts outstanding were apportioned against either agreement the references to the two agreements were mistaken and the hearing on the day that such incongruity was noticed was required to be adjourned (both sets of parties agreeing to pay costs to the State Legal Services Authority) for such minor discrepancy to be resolved. (3.) The sixth clause of the terms records a consolidated award in the sum of Rs.70.5 lakh and interest at the rate of 11.18 per cent "ROI (flat) per annum from the date of (the) terms of settlement." The seventh clause records that the judgment-debtors would be liable to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.98,16,960/-including an interest component of Rs.25,62,000/- and service tax of Rs.2,04,960/-. The parties agreed that the entire amount would be paid in 36 monthly installments beginning April 1, 2004 and ending February 1, 2007 (The terms record that the 34th and 35th installments would both be paid on January 1, 2007). The parties agreed that the entire amount would be paid in 36 monthly installments beginning April 1, 2004 and ending February 1, 2007 (The terms record that the 34th and 35th installments would both be paid on January 1, 2007). (4.) Clause 11 of the terms provides that upon the sum of Rs.98,16,960/-being tendered in accordance with the payment schedule, the judgment-debtors would be entitled to "retain possession of the equipments." The judgment- debtors have, however, demonstrated that at the time that the consent terms were filed, the judgment-debtors had been dispossessed of the excavator and the pay-loaders and rely on the following sentence at clause 12 to raise the first of the two issues in their petition under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure: "12.... The equipment forming subject matters of the first agreement and the second agreement shall be returned to the respondents...." (5.) The judgment-debtors insist that the consent terms have been rendered in-executable by the decree-holders conduct. They say that the consent terms provided for mutual obligations and cast a duty on the decree-holder to make over possession of the three pieces of equipment covered thereby to the judgment-debtors. They allege that in the decree-holder not having returned pay-loader No.301 to the judgment-debtors, the decree-holder cannot claim the benefits apparently due to it under the consent terms. For such purpose the judgment-debtors place a passage from the well-known judgment reported at AIR 1956 SC 359 (Jai Narain Ram Lundia v. Kedar Nath Khetan and Ors.) "18. Much of the argument about this revolved round the question whether the equitable rules that obtain before decree in a suit far specific performance continue at the stage of execution. It is not necessary for us to go into that here because the position in the present case is much simpler. When a decree imposes obligations on both sides which are so conditioned that performance by one is conditional on performance by the other execution will not be ordered unless the party seeking execution not only offers to perform his side but, when objection is raised, satisfies the executing Court that he is in a position to do so. Any other rule would "have the effect of varying the conditions of the decree: a thing that an executing Court cannot do. Any other rule would "have the effect of varying the conditions of the decree: a thing that an executing Court cannot do. There may of course be decrees where the obligations imposed on each side are distinct and severable and in such a case each party might well be left to its own execution. But when the obligations are reciprocal and are interlinked so that they cannot be separated, any attempt to enforce performance unilaterally would be to defeat the directions in the decree and to go behind them which, of course, an executing Court cannot do. The only question therefore is whether the decree in the present case is of this nature. We are clear that it is." (6.) But in course of arguments, the judgment-debtors have climbed down from such high horse to put forward an alternate argument of adjustment on account of the undelivered pay-loader. (7.) The two questions that the judgment-debtors pose in G. A. No.37 of 2006 are as to whether the judgment-debtors are liable under the consent terms for pay-loader No.301 that was never made over by the decree-holder to the judgment-debtors after the execution of the consent terms; and, the rate of interest that the decree-holder would be entitled to if any principal sum is found owing under the consent terms from the judgment-debtors to the decree-holder. (8.) The judgment-debtors say that pay-loader No. 301 was in no condition to be used when the settlement was arrived at and the consent terms contemplated that it would be overhauled and made over to the judgment- debtors. The judgment-debtors assert that the decree-holder, caused pay- loader No. 301 to be dispatched to the mechanic and that the decree-holder subsequently sought and obtained an order for the appointment of a receiver to take delivery of the pay-loader from the mechanic. The judgment-debtors claim that since the consent terms apportioned a sum of Rs.43 lakh in respect of the agreement of 2001 and the judgment-debtors had use of only one of the pay-loaders, half of the amount of Rs.43 lakh claimed by the decree-holder should be written off and the claim in execution reduced accordingly. (9.) A chart has been made over by the judgment-debtors where they have claimed a discount of Rs.21.5 lakh against the sum of Rs.59 lakh shown under the first clause of the consent terms; added the amount of Rs. (9.) A chart has been made over by the judgment-debtors where they have claimed a discount of Rs.21.5 lakh against the sum of Rs.59 lakh shown under the first clause of the consent terms; added the amount of Rs. 11.5 lakh on account of further loan disbursed as recognised in the second clause and deducted therefrom the sum of Rs.3.5 lakh not paid by the decree-holder to Ideal Finance and the sum of Rs.6 lakh on account of No. 301 which was never delivered to the judgment-debtors to arrive at a net amount of Rs.2 lakh under the head of further loan disbursed; arrived at the principal amount of Rs.39.5 lakh (Rs.59 lakh as per clause 1 less Rs.21.5 lakh on assumption of pay-loader No.301 being half the value of Rs.43 lakh apportioned towards the 2001 agreement and adding Rs.2 lakh on account of further loan); calculated interest at 11.18 per cent on the principal sum of Rs. 39.5 lakh to reach a figure of Rs.9,36,732/-as at June 28, 2008; claimed credit for the admitted sum of Rs.45,89,722/- paid to the decree-holder; to ultimately seek refund of a sum of Rs.2,97,010/- allegedly paid in excess of the amount due under the consent terms. (10) The decree-holder initially did one better. It produced a chart calculating interest at 19.40 per cent per annum on its assertion that the flat rate of 11.18 per cent indicated in the consent terms amounted to "IRR" at the rate of 19.40 per cent per annum. The decree-holder applied such unexplained "IRR" rate to the cumulative amounts due upon default in installments to arrive at a receivable figure of Rs.80,22,411/- as at June 1, 2008, added sums of Rs.2,56,595/- and Rs.6,62,000/-on account of repossession expenses and legal costs, respectively, for a grand claim of Rs.89,41,006/-. (11.) In such first chart made over by the decree-holder, two sets of calculations appear at the head and are designated by the letters A and B. In calculation A the awarded amount is taken as Rs.70,50,000/-which is the figure that is recognised at clause 6 of the consent terms. The interest and service tax in calculation A is shown to be Rs.27,66,945/- which is close to the sum of the figures Rs.25,62,000/-and Rs.2,04,960/- which appear at clause 7 of the consent terms. The interest and service tax in calculation A is shown to be Rs.27,66,945/- which is close to the sum of the figures Rs.25,62,000/-and Rs.2,04,960/- which appear at clause 7 of the consent terms. Upon adding the two, calculation A throws up a total amount of Rs.98,16,945/- which the decree-holder claims translates to a monthly installment figure of Rs.2,72,693/-over 36 months. The arithmetic is clearly wrong as Rs. 2,72,693/-multiplied by 36 does not amount to Rs.98,16,945/-. The monthly installment figure indicate at the foot of calculation A is obviously borrowed from the schedule forming part of clause 7 of the consent terms. However minor, there is a wrong figure handed over to Court without the decree-holder taking due care. (12.) Calculation B in the decree-holders first chart takes the awarded amount to be Rs.67 lakh and the interest and service tax on such sum is shown to be Rs.26,29,040/-for a total of Rs.93,29,040/- translating to monthly installments of Rs.2,59,140/-spread over 36 months. (13.) At least one apparent dispute is resolved by the first chart made over by the decree-holder. There is admission that a sum of Rs.3.5 lakh awarded under the consent terms cannot be claimed. Such amount of Rs.3.5 lakh was to be paid by the decree-holder to Ideal Finance in respect of another piece of equipment (clause 20 of the consent terms) which the parties say was never paid; and the decree-holder has ungrudgingly conceded that the awarded amount should be reduced accordingly. (14.) Two subsequent charts have been made over by the decree-holder, the first claiming interest at the rate of 36 per cent per annum and the second claiming interest at the rate of 11.18 per cent per annum. Both these charts show sums more than what the decree-holder is entitled to as both are unabashed essays by the decree-holder to play with the arithmetic and extort more than what is due to the decree-holder. But there are the two questions that need to be addressed before the matter of fudged figures can be attended to. (15.) Clause 2 of the consent terms records that the decree-holder would provide a further sum of Rs. 11.5 lakh (in addition to the Rs.59 lakh due under the two agreements) to the judgment-debtors, inter alia, for the purpose of effecting repairs to the equipment. (15.) Clause 2 of the consent terms records that the decree-holder would provide a further sum of Rs. 11.5 lakh (in addition to the Rs.59 lakh due under the two agreements) to the judgment-debtors, inter alia, for the purpose of effecting repairs to the equipment. Such clause includes the following sentence: "2.........Provided that if the costs of such repair exceeds Rs.7 lacs, which amount would be arranged for by the respondents (Judgment-debtors) and such arrangement or failure to make such arrangement shall not affect the terms and conditions contained herein." (16.) The judgment-debtors admit that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid by the decree-holder on account of repair of pay-loader No.299. They say that the further sum of Rs.6 lakh on account of repairs that was to be paid, and may in fact have been paid, to the mechanic by the decree-holder for pay-loader no. 301 cannot be debited against them as this pay-loader did not return to the judgment-debtors at any stage after the execution of the consent terms. The judgment-debtors suggest that since pay-loader No.301 was never made available to them, the decree-holder is neither entitled to this sum of Rs.6 lakh out of the sum of Rs.11.5 lakh indicated in clause 2 of the consent terms, nor is the decree-holder is entitled to any payment under the consent terms in respect of such pay-loader. (17.) Even if it be assumed, in the absence of any cogent material in that regard being produced by either side, that the two pay-loaders were identical in specifications and quality, the judgment-debtors argument on such score cannot be accepted. The first judgment-debtor wrote to the mechanic, Telcon, on April 2, 2004 recording a visit by one of the representatives of the first judgment-debtor and agreeing to the quotation submitted to the decree-holder by Telcon. The letter recorde that the first judgment-debtor would advice the decree-holder "to pay Rs.6 lacs and send the equipment to you immediately so that you undertake the repairing without any delay." The third paragraph of the letter promised Telcon that any amount on account of such repair work in excess of Rs.6 lakh would be paid by the first judgment-debtor and the first judgment-debtor should be billed therefor. (18.) The mere fact that the decree-holder dispatched pay-loader No.301 to Telcon is irrelevant in the circumstances as it is apparent that it was the first judgment-debtor that instructed Telcon to undertake the repairs d it was to be the first judgment-debtor which was to receive the repaired pay-loader. It appears from the documents, particularly those appended to the affidavit- in-opposition to the application under section 47 of the Code, that pay-loader No. 301 was in no condition to be used immediately upon the consent terms being signed and that it was the contemplation of the parties that the first judgment-debtor would take delivery of such pay-loader from Telcon after settling the bill for the repairs as the overhauling charges were to be well in excess of the amount payable under the consent terms by the decree-holder. (19.) It is here that the orders passed in the several rounds of execution and the applications made therein need be noticed. The first order in the execution proceedings was made on E. C. No. 58 of 2005 on July 14, 2005 when the judgment-debtors were directed to hand over possession of the machines being the subject matter of the agreements within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. On August 11, 2005, again on E.C. No. 58 of 2005 a further order was made recording aid undertaking on behalf of the judgment-debtors that possession of the machines would be made over within a period of two weeks from such date. The parties advocates were appointed joint receivers to receive the equipment. It does not appear clear from the order whether the judgment-debtors undertook to make over both pay-loaders and the excavator or undertook to return only the one pay-loader and excavator in judgment-debtors custody as it is undeniable that the other pay- loader continued to remain with Telcon. (20.) On September 27, 2005, a further order in E.C. No. 58 of 2005 recorded that two of the machines had been taken possession of by the receivers but one piece of equipment was with Telcon. The order noticed that Telcon had demanded payment of Rs.8,37,642.58p. over and above the advance that had been paid and the judgment-debtors were clear Telcons dues within three weeks for the new receiver appointed by such order to take possession of pay-loader No. 301. The order noticed that Telcon had demanded payment of Rs.8,37,642.58p. over and above the advance that had been paid and the judgment-debtors were clear Telcons dues within three weeks for the new receiver appointed by such order to take possession of pay-loader No. 301. The next relevant order is of March 2, 2006 when an offer of Rs.14 lakh is recorded to have been received following an advertisement issued by the receiver. It is such offer of Rs. 14 lakh that upon deduction of sales tax and other charges is reduced to Rs. 13,98,000/- and admitted by the parties as the consideration for the excavator and pay-loader No. 299. (21.) By the time the order of March 10, 2006 was made there were several contempt petitions that had been received in connection with orders made in EC No. 58 of 2005. Telcon was represented at the hearing and it was submitted on its behalf that its claim towards repairs amounted to Rs.14,87,473.82p. out of which Rs.49,831.24p. was the value of materials returned. Telcon admitted that it had received a sum of Rs.6 lakh (in respect of pay-loader No.301) from the decree-holder leaving a balance receivable amount of Rs.8,37,642/- (after Rs.49,831/-was adjusted against Telcons final claim). The order required the receiver to sell the pay-loader and for Telcon to be paid Rs.6,36,000/- out of the sale proceeds. Telcon was given leave to proceed against the judgment-debtors for the balance claim of Rs.2,01,507/-. (The two figures do not add up to Rs.8,37,642/- but the sum is sufficiently close.) (22.) The parties are agreed that the sale of pay-loader No.301 fetched Rs. 10,30,000/-out of which Rs.6,36,000/- was paid to Telcon in compliance with the order of March 10, 2006 and the balance of Rs.3,94,000/- is available for appropriation under the decree. (23.) The judgment-debtors submission that they are entitled to a proportionate discount on account of pay-loader No.301 not being made over to them is without basis. The pay-loader was notionally made over to them upon it being reached to Telcon and it was open to the judgment-debtors to obtain delivery of the machine from Telcon upon payment of Telcons dues in respect thereof. That the judgment-debtors chose not to take delivery of the pay-loader and not to make payment to Telcon in respect thereof cannot be held against the decree-holder. That the judgment-debtors chose not to take delivery of the pay-loader and not to make payment to Telcon in respect thereof cannot be held against the decree-holder. The decree-holder can receive the sum of Rs.3,94,000/- which is the net amount that pay-loader No. 301 garnered upon its sale by giving credit to the judgment-debtors for such sum. (24.) If the matter is viewed from a different perspective the reason for holding so may be clearer. In execution of the decree the decree-holder was entitled to seek an order for sale of any asset of the judgment debtors. The decree-holder would ordinarily be entitled to an order for sale of the asset of the judgment-debtors and receive the proceeds in protanto satisfaction of the decree. In the event the decree-holder was to incur any expense for freeing the asset of any charge prior to its sale, the amount expended for such purpose would be required to be borne by the decree-holder and come out first from the sale proceeds before the balance could be appropriated by the decree- holder in protanto satisfaction of the decretal debt. It was the same with pay-loader No. 301. The decree-holder obtained an order for appointment of a receiver who was required to sell the pay-loader and hold the excess of the sale proceeds upon discharging Telcons lien, The judgment-debtors right is limited to their entitlement to credit in the sum of Rs.3,36,000/- being the net amount received on the sale of pay-loader No.301. (25.) The judgment-debtors have claimed that the default clause in the consent terms does not permit the decree-holder to charge any interest. The decree-holder says that clause 17 of the consent terms permits the decree-holder to claim interest in accordance with the hire purchase agreements and have referred to the identical clause 5{a) of either agreement. The decree-holder claims interest for delay in payment "at the rate of Rs. 1 per thousand or part thereof per day with quarterly rest from the due date until the date of payment." This rate, according to the decree-holder, is roughly 36 per cent per annum which is the basis indicated in calculation A of its first chart and in the first of the two subsequent charts furnished by it at the hearing. 1 per thousand or part thereof per day with quarterly rest from the due date until the date of payment." This rate, according to the decree-holder, is roughly 36 per cent per annum which is the basis indicated in calculation A of its first chart and in the first of the two subsequent charts furnished by it at the hearing. (26.) The judgment-debtors assert that clause 5(a) in either agreement cannot be relied upon as the interest payable upon default of the judgment-debtors to discharge payment in accordance with the consent terms. They say that clause 5(a) speaks of compensation and not interest and it should be construed as a penal clause. The judgment-debtors rely on a judgment reported at AIR 1962 Calcutta 272 (Bishwanath Kundu v. Sm.Subala Dossi) to suggest that in execution proceedings the Court would disregard such penal provision and disallow penal rate of interest to be applied. It is, however, conceded that as in the reported case it is open to the Court to provide for interest at a lesser rate such that no penalty is inflicted on the judgment- debtors. There is merit in such assertion by the judgment-debtors as clause 5(a) of either agreement cannot be said to apply, in terms, for the purpose of assessment of interest for default in payment under the consent terms. Equally, clause 5{a) appears to be penal in nature. (27.) On the basis of the chart made over by the decree-holder, it appears that the rate of 11.18 per cent has been accepted by them and since such rate appears in the consent terms, the decree-holder would be bound by such rate and not the rate of 19.40 per cent per annum or 36 per cent per annum as it has sought to claim. (28.) The judgment-debtors submit that in the event any sum is found payable by them to the decree-holder under the consent terms, the reasonable interest adjudged by Court should apply on the principal component specified in the consent terms and not on the entire amount mentioned in clause 7 thereof. Such contention, eminently reasonable and appealing as it is, cannot be accepted here. It is not uncommon for parties to arrive at a settlement and agree that a certain sum would be due from one to the other as at the date of the settlement. Such contention, eminently reasonable and appealing as it is, cannot be accepted here. It is not uncommon for parties to arrive at a settlement and agree that a certain sum would be due from one to the other as at the date of the settlement. It is also not unusual for the claimant to accede to a request for such agreed sum to be received over a period of time with or without additional interest. In commercial claims the Court may arrive at the principal sum adjudged to be due on the date of the decree and it matters little if such principal sum includes an interest component calculated till the date of the decree for the Court to direct payment of further interest on the principal sum adjudged to be due. (29.) Whether the parties agree to a certain sum being due as at a particular date by taking into account that such sum would be paid over a period of time or whether the Court arrives at the principal sum adjudged to be due, it is not impermissible for the amount to be capitalised and interest to be applied on the entirety of the sum till it is cleared. The parties here agreed, as would appear from clause 7 of the consent terms, that the sum of Rs.98,16,960/-, inclusive of interest and service tax, would be the amount that the judgment-debtors would have to pay over a period of 36 months. Clause 7 of the consent terms and the schedule thereto entitled the decree- holder to receive fixed amounts by fixed dates. To the extent that the decree- holder did not receive the payment due on a certain day it is entitled to be compensated therefor by way of interest not amounting to penalty for the delay in such quantum of money being made available to it. (30.) It would not be harsh to require the judgment-debtors to pay interest at the rate of 11.18 per cent per annum on reducing balance basis on such part of the sum of Rs.98,16,960/- (or the relevant figure upon adjustment of the figure of Rs .98,16,960/-) for which the judgment debtors are in default. (31.) On the decree-holders showing, the judgment-debtors are entitled to a further adjustment. (31.) On the decree-holders showing, the judgment-debtors are entitled to a further adjustment. The sum of Rs.70,50,000/-recorded in clause 6 of the consent terms took into account a payment of Rs.3.5 lakh that the decree-holder was obliged to make to Ideal Finance. Admittedly, such payment has not been made and it is irrelevant as to whether it was required to be made and has not been made or it was altogether not required to be made. This final further adjustment out of the total sum of Rs.98,16,960/-found, in principle, to be the principal sum adjudged has to be made on the basis of the second of the two subsequent charts furnished by the decree-holder. (32.) Since the first of the two subsequent charts calculates interest at the rate of 36 per cent per annum, which has been found to be impermissible, the calculations appearing in such chart may be disregarded. The second of the two subsequent charts fares no better in the accounting jugglery attempted therein, but some of the figures may be used to assess the amount due to the decree-holder. The decree-holder has claimed the awarded amount of Rs.70,50,000/- and interest and service tax of Rs.27,66,945/-to arrive at the total receivable figure of Rs.98,16,945/-before giving credit to the payments received. The decree-holder has then taken the installment payment of Rs.2,72,693/- and proceeded to calculate interest in the second of the subsequent charts at the rate of 11.18 per cent per annum for the days that the installments have remained unpaid. The interest calculation in such second chart is as at July 31, 2008. (33.) The decree-holder is required to subtract the sum of Rs.3.5 lakh that it was not required to pay the Ideal Finance from the principal awarded amount of Rs.70.50 lakh as recorded in the consent terms. Consequently, its claim on account of interest and service tax would stand proportionately reduced. Fortunately, in an apparent moment of madness, the decree-holder has furnished the correct calculations under heading B in its first chart. Thus, on its admission, the decree-holder was entitled to a sum of Rs.93,29,040/- as the total awarded amount and not the sum of Rs.98,16,960/-as recorded in clause 7 of the consent terms. Fortunately, in an apparent moment of madness, the decree-holder has furnished the correct calculations under heading B in its first chart. Thus, on its admission, the decree-holder was entitled to a sum of Rs.93,29,040/- as the total awarded amount and not the sum of Rs.98,16,960/-as recorded in clause 7 of the consent terms. (34.) The decree-holder would be entitled to interest at the rate of 11.18 per cent per annum on the unpaid installments or belated payment of installments with the total awarded amount reckoned at Rs.93,29,040/-and the installment payments for 36 months being reworked to Rs.2,59,140/- per month as would appear from calculation B of the decree-holders first chart. (35.) There is only a marginal difference between the amounts cited by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors as the sum for which the judgment- debtors must be given credit. The judgment-debtors figure of Rs.45,89,722/-which has more clarity is preferred over the decree-holders figure of Rs.45,80,572/-as would appear from the foot of the second of its two subsequent charts. (36.) G. A. No. 700 of 2007 is an application by the decree-holder seeking to realise the judgment-debtors dues from its debtors. An order was made on March 20, 2007 on such application restraining the first judgment-debtor from receiving payments from its debtors without leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.88,96,338/-. Such order was modified on May 17, 2007 when the judgment-debtors undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakh by reducing the amount to be set apart by the sum of Rs.15 lakh to Rs.73,96,338/-. (37.) Such order as modified was carried in appeal and by an order of July 2, 2007 the advocate-on-records on either side were appointed joint receivers to collect the amount of Rs.88,96,338/- from two of the creditors of the first judgment-debtor and hold the same till further orders. It is unclear whether the sum of Rs.15 lakh undertaken to be paid by the judgment-debtors had been tendered or not but such minor detail is immaterial as, in any event, the joint receivers appointed by the appellate Court hold such principal amount along with any interest that may have accrued thereon. It is unclear whether the sum of Rs.15 lakh undertaken to be paid by the judgment-debtors had been tendered or not but such minor detail is immaterial as, in any event, the joint receivers appointed by the appellate Court hold such principal amount along with any interest that may have accrued thereon. Since G.A. No. 700 of 2007 was in aid of the execution proceedings and the money remains with the joint receivers, such application has spent its force and is disposed of by confirming the subsisting order which will remain operative till such time that the decree is satisfied. (38.) The judgment-debtors application under section 47 of the Code, being GA No. 37 of 2006 is disposed of as above without any order as to costs. The previous execution proceedings being E.C. No. 58 of 2005 is disposed of by permitting the subsequent execution proceedings to continue till the decretal debt, in accordance with the findings and observations here, is discharged. The decree-holder will be entitled to actual costs incurred in execution, including on account of remuneration paid to the receiver and other sums expended on account of the receiver. (39.) Since the principal sum of Rs.88,96,338/-remains deposited with the joint receivers, the decree-holder will be entitled to interest on the amount that was due to it till the date of the deposit of the sum of Rs.88,96,338/-with the joint receivers (or the last date of the joint receivers receiving the money if it came in tranches) and the proportionate amount of the interest that has accrued on the deposit made by the joint receivers with any bank to the extent of the decree-holders claim on account of the outstanding decretal debt with interest prior to the deposit. The judgment-debtors will be entitled to the balance sum from the joint receivers, including the proportionate share of the interest that has accrued on the deposit. If the receiver appointed over pay-loader No.301 has made over the net sale proceeds of Rs.3,94,000/- to the decree-holder, the judgment-debtors will get credit for it as if payment of such amount was made by them to the decree-holder; or, if such receiver still holds the money he shall forthwith make over the same with all interest accrued thereon to the judgment-debtors as the deposit with the other joint receivers is more than necessary to meet the balance decretal debt. Only E.C. No.71 of 2007 survives for the disbursement of the amount held by the joint receivers in terms of this order and the assessment of costs payable to the decree-holder. E.C. No.71 of 2007 will appear as an adjourned chamber matter in the monthly list of November, 2008. Urgent certified Photostat copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Later: The judgment-debtors seek a stay of the operation of the order in so far as it has been held that the judgment-debtors will not be entitled to a complete discount on account of pay-loader No. 301. Such prayer is refused. Appeal disposed of.