Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the reyisional jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar exercising the powers of Executing Court, vide which the objection petition filed by the petitioner to execution of decree were ordered to be dismissed. 2. The plaintiff/decree holder filed a suit for recovery of 9,75,000/- (Rupees nine lac seventy five thousand only) along with pendente lite and future interest. Interest claimed by the petitioner was 18 per cent per annum. The amount claimed in the suit was inclusive of interest on the principal amount of 6,61,132.76 P (Rupees six lac sixty one thousand, one hundred thirty two and paise. seventy six only). 3. Learned trial court decreed the suit in toto and passed a decree for a sum of 9,75,000/- (Rupees nine lac seventy five thousand only) along with future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 4. The petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. The operative part of the decree passed by the the learned lower appellate court reads as under:- " After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned lower court has rightly decreed the suit for Rs.6,61,132.76 PS along with pendente lite interest. However, the future interest at the rate 12% p.a. is certainly excessive and it is reduced to 6% per annum. With these observations and modifications, the appeal of the appellant/defendant is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Record of the learned lower court be sent backhand the appeal file be consigned to the record room." 5. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of filing appeal, being a money decree the recovery was not stayed and the petitioner was directed to deposit the decretal amount. In pursuance to the order passed by this court the petitioner deposited a sum of 10,64,987/- (Rupees ten lac sixty four thousand nine hundred and eighty seven only) on 24.12.1999. Amount deposited by the petitioner was withdrawn by the decree holder. 6. In pursuance to the order passed by this court the petitioner deposited a sum of 10,64,987/- (Rupees ten lac sixty four thousand nine hundred and eighty seven only) on 24.12.1999. Amount deposited by the petitioner was withdrawn by the decree holder. 6. Learned lower appellate court modified the decree and decreed the suit for a sum of 6,61,132.76P (Rupees six lac sixty one thousand, one hundred thirty two and paise seventy six only) along with pendente lite interest but the future interest was reduced to 6% per annum, from 12 per cent per annum. 7. The case of the petitioner, is that in spite of the fact that no amount was due to the decree holder, in execution application the decree holders calculated the amount due to them by treating the decretal amount as 9,75,000/- (Rupees nine lac seventy five thousand only) and by claiming pendente lite interest as granted by the learned lower appellate court and also future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum to claim additional amount of approximately over 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lac only). 8. In order to arrive at this amount decree holder adjusted a sum of 10,64,987/- (Rupees ten lac sixty four thousand nine hundred and eighty seven only) first towards costs, then interest and thereafter principal. 9. The petitioner challenged the calculation made by the respondent firstly on the ground that it was not open to the respondent to adjust the amount first towards the costs, interest and thereafter towards principal, as it was required to be first adjusted towards principal. 10. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent, that the amount payable unless so specified the judgment debtor, was required to be adjusted first towards costs, interest and then principal, therefore no fault can be found with the order of the learned executing court in this regard. 11. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel on this point deserves to be accepted, as it is well settled law that the amount deposited by judgment debtor, is first to be adjusted against costs, then interest and finally towards principal. The learned exe- cuting court, therefore, was right in this regard. 12. 11. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel on this point deserves to be accepted, as it is well settled law that the amount deposited by judgment debtor, is first to be adjusted against costs, then interest and finally towards principal. The learned exe- cuting court, therefore, was right in this regard. 12. However, there is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the calculations submitted by decree holder were wrongly accepted by the learned executing court by ignoring the decree passed by the learned appellate court. In accordance with the decree, the decree holder was required to treat 6,61,132.76 (Rupees six lac sixty one thousand one hundred thirty two and paise seventy six only) as principal amount. The decree holder was entitled to pendente lite interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on this amount till passing of decree, and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the principal amount as future interest till date of payment. The amount of 10,64,987/- (Rupees ten lac sixty four thousand nine hundred and eighty seven only), deposited by the petitioner was to be adjusted first towards costs, then interest and finally towards principal. The amount, if any, remaining after adjustment was to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till payment. The learned executing court, however, failed to follow this principle, therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The revision is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and case remanded to the learned executing court to decide objections filed by the petitioner afresh. Revision disposed off.