ORDER All these three revision petitions are at the instance of the judgment debtors in three identical suits and are directed against the dismissal of the review petitions by the executing Court. 2. Since all three matters are similar it would be sufficient if facts in C.R.P.No.250 of 2009 are noticed. 3. The original first respondent herein (now represented by his legal representatives - respondents 2 to 8) tiled a suit for recovery of RsA,12,469/- with 24% interest per annum being O.S.No.876 of 1996 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said respondent herein had claimed that he had supplied handloom fabric to the petitioner herein and as per the invoice - Ex.A-2, a sum of Rs.2,85,916/- remained outstanding. The present suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of the said amount together with interest at 24% per annum on the said amount of Rs.2,85,916/- up to the date of suit making the total suit claim to Rs.4,12,469/-. The said suit on contest was decreed by the trial Court for the said sum of Rs.4, 12,469/- together with future interest at 18% per annum from 13.06.1996 (date of suit) till realization under judgment and decree dated 23.03.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal being CCCA.No.150 of 2001, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and the appellate Court did not interfere with the said judgment and decree except reducing the interest, which was allowed by the trial Court at 24% from date of contract till date of suit, to 18%. The operative portion of the judgment in the appeal of this Court is as follows: "24. Without going much deep into this aspect, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the commercial nature of transaction, we feel it just to fix the rate of interest at 18% all through i.e. from the date of contract till realization. With this modification in the rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." 4. The respondent herein filed E.P.No.117 of 2006 claiming balance at Rs.5,21,703/based on the memo of calculation filed by the first respondent/decree holder. The petitioner herein, who is judgment debtor, also filed a calculation memo stating that no amount is due to the decree holder. No order as to costs." 4. The respondent herein filed E.P.No.117 of 2006 claiming balance at Rs.5,21,703/based on the memo of calculation filed by the first respondent/decree holder. The petitioner herein, who is judgment debtor, also filed a calculation memo stating that no amount is due to the decree holder. The respondent/decree holder, thereafter, filed application in E.A.No.371 of 2006 under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to reject the plea of the petitioner/judgment debtor of payment and full and final settlement vide its memo date 29.08.2006. The executing Court heard the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor and by order dated 15.11.2007 in the said E.A came to the conclusion that the petitioner/judgment debtor is due a sum of Rs.2,89,713/- and E.A was allowed to that extent. The petitioner herein, thereafter, filed the present review petition numbered as E.A.No.223 of 2008 seeking review of the said order of the executing Court dated 15.11.2007 in E.A.No.371 of 2006. The said review petition was filed, primarily, to bring to the notice of the executing Court that interest on interest cannot be allowed to be recovered under Section 3(3)(c) of the Interest Act and that the principal amount of invoice only being Rs.2,85,916/- the calculation of interest can only be on the aforesaid amount and thereby there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The said application was contested by the respondent/decree holder and by the impugned order the executing Court rejected the said review petition holding that no ground is made out warranting review. Questioning the said impugned order the judgment debtor has filed the present revision. 5. Heard Mrs. A. Anasuya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Mrs. A. Anasuya, learned counsel, has contended that the decree as granted by the trial Court was modified by the appellate Court and thereby the interest could have been charged on the invoice amount of Rs.2,85,916/- from the date of invoice till realization, only at 18% per annum. She submits that the suit claim made by the respondent/decree holder, which is reflected in the calculations in the EP, covers the interest at 24% calculated by the decree holder on the said invoice amount up to the date of suit and thereafter, 18% interest is allowed form the date of suit till the date of EP. She submits that the suit claim made by the respondent/decree holder, which is reflected in the calculations in the EP, covers the interest at 24% calculated by the decree holder on the said invoice amount up to the date of suit and thereafter, 18% interest is allowed form the date of suit till the date of EP. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the suit claim, therefore, comprises of principal as well as interest. She submits that firstly the interest at 24% is not allowed by the appellate Court vide judgment and decree in CCCA.No.150 of 2001 and secondly, the interest component in the suit claim cannot further attract interest as it is contrary to the provisions of the Interest Act, referred to above. It is also contended that the petitioner had paid 1/3rd of the decretal amount and costs on 12.10.2001 pending the appeal. 7. Based on the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 (1) to (3) CPC the learned counsel submits that the interest ceases to accrue on the amount deposited by the petitioner/ judgment debtor. She also questions the appropriation of the said part payment by the said decree holder towards interest alone and she claims that the said part payment must be appropriated towards the principal and submits that the review application ought to have been allowed by the executing Court. She places strong reliance upon the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chittoorv. V. Kalabharathi (1) 2005 (5) ALT 564 = 2005 (6) ALD 61 for the proposition that when the amounts are deposited into the Court even if the same amounts to part payment against the decree, the same cannot be appropriated towards interest in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 (1) to (3) CPC. 8. Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no ground for review is made out and the impugned order of the Court below refusing to review the order is not open for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He relied upon the following decision of in support of the above proposition: Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2) (2006) 1 SCC 509 ; Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai (3) AIR 1987 SC 1160 ; Smt. Meera Bhanjav. He relied upon the following decision of in support of the above proposition: Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2) (2006) 1 SCC 509 ; Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai (3) AIR 1987 SC 1160 ; Smt. Meera Bhanjav. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (4) AIR 1995 SC 455 and Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (5) AIR 2001 SC 3095 = 2002 (1) ALT 19.1 (DNSC) for the proposition that as to the meaning assigned to the words 'the principal sum adjudged' and as used under Section 34 CPC. He, therefore, submits that when the appeal was dismissed by this Court, the principal sum adjudged by the trial Court was not interfered with. The said principal sum adjudged as per the above decision, therefore, comprises of the entire suit claim on the date of suit viz. the total amount of Rs.4,12,469/- which was decreed by the trial Court. Alternatively he submits that even if the appellate Court's decree granting interest at 18% throughout i.e. from the date of contract till realization is interpreted to cover the pre-suit interest as well, even then the memo of calculation submitted by the respondent/decree holder is correct and the petitioner/judgment debtor is still due and payable substantial amounts to the respondent/decree holder. He also submits that the respondent/decree holder is perfectly justified in appropriating the part payment made by the petitioner/judgment debtor, towards the interest, then towards the costs and then towards the principal. The said amount paid by the petitioner/judgment debtor being 1/3rd of the decretal amount and costs, therefore, cannot but be appropriated in the above manner and the decree holder(sic. J.Dr.) has no right to seek appropriation towards principal. 9. Learned counsel has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate (ICDS) Ltd. v. Smt. Smithaben H. Patel and others (6) AIR 1999 SC 1036 as well as in Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (7) AIR 1995 SC 1572 and two other decisions of the learned single Judge of this Court in Sukhdev Pershad v. B. Kishnalal (8) 1996 (1) ALT 71 and Challa Venkata Subbayya v. Union Bank Of India (9) 1998 (1) ALT 749 . 10. In the light of the above rival contentions the points that arise for consideration are: 1. 10. In the light of the above rival contentions the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the impugned order is perverse and whether the memo of calculation given by the respondent/decree holder was rightly appreciated by the executing Court? 2. Whether the contention of the judgment debtor that he is entitled for appropriation of the part payment towards principal is justified and if so, whether the interest on the said deposit ceases from the date of deposit in terms of Order 21 Rule l (i) to (iii) CPC? POINT No.1: 11. The judgment of the trial Court would show that on issue No.2 the trial Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to 24% interest as claimed and consequently, the invoice amount together with interest, which formed the suit claim of Rs.4,12,469/as on 13.06.1996 (date of suit) came to be decreed. Once the said amount was decreed, the trial Court granted future interest at 18% per annum. It is, therefore, clear that the said suit claim comprises of principal amount i.e. invoice amount of Rs.2,85,969/ + interest thereon at 24% per annum as calculated by the plaintiff up to the date of suit. In appeal. however, the said rate of interest was reduced from 24% to 18% uniformly. Thus, as per the appellate decree, the plaintiff was entitled to interest at 18% throughout i.e. from the date of contract till realization. Though the said appeal was dismissed, to the extent of interest there was a modification. In effect, therefore, the suit claim of the respondent/decree holder stood reduced by award of interest at 18% per annum as against 24% claimed by the decree holder in the suit. When the said decree was put to execution the decree holder was entitled to interest at 18% from the date of invoice i.e. 12.08.1994 throughout till realization. The executing Court had gone into the said calculation and in Para 5 of its order in E.A.No.371 of 2006 dated 15.11.2007 had calculated 18% interest on the invoice value and as on the date of suit i.e. 13.06.1996 determined the suit claim as Rs.3,81,018/-. While charging further interest from the date of suit Le. 13.06.1996, however, the executing Court had calculated 18% interest on the said suit claim of Rs.3,81,081/-. 12. While charging further interest from the date of suit Le. 13.06.1996, however, the executing Court had calculated 18% interest on the said suit claim of Rs.3,81,081/-. 12. The error apparent from the above being that the suit amount of Rs.3,81,081/- comprises of the principal i.e. invoice value of Rs.2,85,916/- and the interest at 18% thereon from the date of invoice till the date of suit. The said interest component in the suit claim, therefore, could not have attracted further interest over it in terms of Section 3 of the Interest Act. The calculations approved by the executing Court in the said order and the finding that the petitioner is due Rs.2,89,713/- as on 20.09.2006 is, therefore, clearly unsustainable. The aforesaid aspect brought out by the petitioner before the executing Court in his application for review, however, remained unconsidered and as such, the first contention of the petitioner that the order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.371 of 2006 warranted a review appears just and permissible. The first point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner. POINT No: 2 13. The consideration of this aspect would involve interpretation and understanding of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC and for the sake of convenience the same is extracted hereunder. 1 Modes of paying money under decree.- (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely: (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or (c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs. (2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgment due. (2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgment due. (3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state the following particulars, namely: (a) the number of the original suit; (b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants; (c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs; (d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case is pending; and (e) the name and address of the payer. (4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2). (5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of sub-rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment: Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal money order or payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case may be.] 14. While the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ICDS (6 supra) case, the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor relies upon the decision of the learned single Judge in Oriental Insurance Company Limited's case (1 supra) by contending that the learned single Judge has already considered the said decision of the Supreme Court also and had upheld the scheme under Order 21 Rule 1 (1) to (3) that the interest ceases on deposit. 15. 15. In the factual context it is to be noted that pending the appeal the petitioner/judgment debtor deposited 1/3rd of the decretal amount and costs, the said deposit was made on 12.10.2001. The calculation of interest under the calculation memos of either side are, therefore, to be divided into six parts as under: (i) In voice amount together with interest from date of invoice till date of suit; (ii) The interest on the invoice amount from the date of suit till date of decree; (iii) The decretal amount viz. principal and interest up to the date when the petitioner/judgment debtor made part payment in pursuance of the interim orders in appeal i.e.12.10.2001; (iv) The balance decretal amount after adjustment and appropriation of the said part payment to arrive at the balance amount due as on the date of EP; (v) The last payment made by the petitioner/judgment debtor on 30.08.2006 and (vi) Balance, if any, due and payable by the petitioner/judgment debtor. 16. The bone of contention between the parties is with regard to the appropriation of the said part payment made on 12.10.2001. While the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder contends that as per the normal rule he has to appropriate the said payment towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ICDS case (6th supra) whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor contends that the moment there is part payment, in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC and its sub-rules, the interest ceases on the deposit and the same has to be adjusted towards principal, based upon the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited's case (1 supra). 17. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited's case (1 supra) this Court has reviewed the entire case law as well as considered the amendment to Order 21 under the 1976 Amendment Act and this Court was of the view, as recorded in para 30, which is extracted hereunder: "30. The deposits made by the judgment-debtors, in compliance with the condition imposed by the appellate Courts, present a different kind of situation. If the orders of the appellate Courts are clear, as to the mode of adjustment, no problem as such, would arise. The deposits made by the judgment-debtors, in compliance with the condition imposed by the appellate Courts, present a different kind of situation. If the orders of the appellate Courts are clear, as to the mode of adjustment, no problem as such, would arise. However, where such orders are silent on that aspect, sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 would govern the situation, and the part payments deserve to be adjusted towards the principal decretal amount, and not any component of interest accrued, upto that date.” This Court, however, has also recorded in para 32 as follows: “32. It is true that the cases decided so far, do not strictly support this view, and in a way, may suggest the other point of view. However, an effort is made by this Court, to explain the purport of sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 1. This Court is conscious of the requirement to follow the precedents, as well as its obligations, to give effect to the legislative mandate. An Endeavour is made to honour both the obligations. Having regard to the importance of the issue and the implications involved in it, further discussion may ensue at appropriate levels.” This Court noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in ICDS case (6 supra), but was of the view that the effect of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC and its sub-rules, as amended, was not specifically considered therein. 18. In the ICDS case (6th supra), the Supreme Court had considered the very same question and had traced various decisions of the English Courts as well as that of the Privy Council and ultimately, followed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Meghraj v. Bayabi (10) AIR 1970 SC 161 . The Supreme Court had also noticed Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. (11) (1996) 2 SCC 71 and in para 14 has recorded an opinion as follows: “14. In view of what has been noticed hereinabove, we hold that the general rule of appropriation of payments towards a decretal amount is that such an amount is to be adjusted firstly strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such direction, adjustments, be made firstly in payment of interest and costs and thereafter in payment of the principal amount. Such a principle is, however, subject to one exception, i.e. that the parties may agree to the adjustment of the payment in any other manner despite the decree. As and when such an agreement is pleaded, the onus of proving is always upon the person pleading the agreement contrary to the general rule or the terms of the decree schedule. The provisions of Sections 59 to 61 of the Contract Act are applicable in cases where a debtor owes several distinct debts to one person and do not deal with cases in which the principal and interest are due on a single debt." In this case, the Supreme Court also referred to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 1 of CPC and its sub-rules. 19. In a latest decision of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (12) (2006) 8 SCC 457, a Constitution Bench has considered an identical question with reference to Order 21 Rule 1 CPC and its sub-rules and the said decision would govern the present case and it would be useful to extract the following paragraphs from the said judgment as under: "14. Now, we may consider the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Code") that have relevance to the issue. The rule of appropriation in respect of amounts deposited in court or in respect of payment into court, is contained in Order XXIV of the Code at the pre decreetal stage and in Order XXI Rule 1 at the post decreetal stage. Though, we are not directly concerned with it, we may notice that 133 special provisions relating to mortgages are found in Order XXXIV of the Code. Under Order XXIV Rule 1, a defendant in a suit for recovery of a debt may at any stage of the suit deposit in court such sum of money as he considers a satisfaction in full of the claim in the plaint. Rule 2 thereof provides for issue of notice of deposit to the plaintiff through the court and for payment out of the amounts to the plaintiff if he applies for the same. Rule 3 specifically states that no interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on any sum deposited by the defendant from the date of such deposit, whether the sum deposited is in full discharge of the claim or it falls short thereof. Rule 3 specifically states that no interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on any sum deposited by the defendant from the date of such deposit, whether the sum deposited is in full discharge of the claim or it falls short thereof. Rule 4 enables the plaintiff to accept the deposit as satisfaction in part and allows him to pursue his suit for what he claims to be the balance due, subject to the consequences provided for therein regarding costs. It also deals with the procedure when the plaintiff accepts the payment in full satisfaction of his claim. 25. In the objects and reasons for amendment of Order XXI Rule 1, it was set out as follows: "The Committee note that there is no provision in the Code in relation to cessation of interest on the money paid under a decree, out of Court, to a decree holder, by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing. The Committee are of the view that, in such a case, the interest should cease to run from the date of such payment. In case the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal money order or payment through a bank, interest should cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him in ordinary course of business of the postal authorities or the bank. Sub-rule (5) in rule 1 of Order XXI has been inserted accordingly" The legislative intent in enacting sub-rules (4) and (5) is therefore clear and it is that interest should cease on the deposit being made and notice given or on the amount being tendered outside the court in the manner provided. Mulla in his commentary on the Code 15th Edition Vol. II at page 1583 has set out the effect of the rules as follows: "Normal rule with respect to money decree is (i) the appropriation of payments towards satisfaction of interest in the first instance, and (ii) then towards principal amount. But this became inoperative, after the amendment of Rule 1 of Order 21, C.P.C. Section 60 of the Contract Act cannot be invoked for the application of the aforesaid normal rule." 26. Thus. But this became inoperative, after the amendment of Rule 1 of Order 21, C.P.C. Section 60 of the Contract Act cannot be invoked for the application of the aforesaid normal rule." 26. Thus. in cases of execution of money decrees or award decrees, or rather, decrees other than mortgage decrees, interest ceases to run on the amount deposited, to the extent of the deposit. It is true that if the amount falls short. the decree holder may be entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards the interest. then towards the costs and then towards the principal amount due under the decree. But the fact remains that to the extent of the deposit, no further interest is payable thereon to the decree holder and there is no question of the decree holder claiming a re-appropriation when it is found that more amounts are due to him and the same is also deposited by the judgment debtor. In other words, the scheme does not contemplate a reopening of the satisfaction to the extent it has occurred by the deposit. No further interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal. 27. As an illustration, we can take the following situation. Suppose, a decree is passed for a sum of Rs.5,000/- by the trial court along with interest and costs and the judgment debtor deposits the same and gives notice to the decree holder either by approaching the executing court under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code or by making the deposit in the execution taken out by the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code. The decree holder is not satisfied with the decree of the trial court. He goes up in appeal and the appellate court enhances the decree amount to Rs.10,000/- with interest and costs. The rule in terms of Order XXI Rule 1, as it now stands, in the background of Order XXIV would clearly be, that the further obligation of the judgment debtor is only to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- decreed by the appellate court with interest thereon from the date the interest is held due and the costs of the appeal. 5,000/- decreed by the appellate court with interest thereon from the date the interest is held due and the costs of the appeal. The decree holder would not be entitled to say that he can get further interest even on the sum of Rs.5,000/- decreed by the trial court and deposited by the judgment debtor even before the enhancement of the amount by the appellate court or that he can re-open the transaction and make a re-appropriation of interest first on Rs.10,000/-, costs and then the principal and claim interest on the whole of the balance sum again. Certainly, at both stages, if there is short-fall in deposit, the decree holder may be entitled to apply the deposit first towards interest, then towards costs and the balance towards the principal. But that is different from saying that in spite of his deposit of the amounts decreed by the trial court, the judgment debtor would still be liable for interest on the whole of the principal amount in case the appellate court enhances the same and awards interest on the enhanced amount. This position regarding execution of money decrees has now become clear in the light of the amendments to Order XXI Rule 1 by Act 104 of 1976. The argument that what is awarded by the appellate court is the amount that should have been awarded by the trial court and so looked at, until the entire principal is paid, the decree holder would be entitled to interest on the amount awarded by the appellate court and therefore he can seek to make a Respondent-appropriation by first Crediting the amount deposited by the judgment debtor pursuant to the decree of the trial court towards the cost in both the courts, towards the interest due on the entire amount and only thereafter towards the principal, is not justified on the scheme of Order XXI Rule 1 understood in the context of Order XXIV Rules 1 to 4 of the Code. The principle appears to be that if a part of the principal has been paid along with interest due thereon, as on the date of issuance of notice of deposit, interest on that part of the principal sum will cease to run thereafter. In other words, there is no obligation on the judgment debtor to pity interest on that part of the principal which he has already paid or deposited. 49. In other words, there is no obligation on the judgment debtor to pity interest on that part of the principal which he has already paid or deposited. 49. Though, a decree holder may have the right to appropriate the payments made by the judgment-debtor, it could only be as provided in the decree if there is provision in that behalf in the decree or, as contemplated by Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code as explained by us above. The Code or the general rules do not contemplate payment of further interest by a judgment debtor on the portion of the principal he has already paid. His obligation is only to pay interest on he balance principal remaining unpaid as adjudged either by the court of first instance or in the court of appeal. On the pretext that the amount adjudged by the appellate court is the real amount due, the decree-holder cannot claim interest on that part of the principal already paid to him. Of course, as indicated, out of what is paid he can adjust the interest and costs first and the balance towards the principal, if there is a shortfall in deposit. But, beyond that, the decree holder cannot seek to re-open the entire transaction and proceed to recalculate the interest on the whole amount and seek a re-appropriation as a whole in the light of the appellate decree." (Emphasis supplied) 20. It would be noticed from the above that the Supreme Court has recognised the right of appropriation of the decree holder in the event of there being no directions in the decree. Further, if amount is deposited by the judgment debtor, which falls short of the decretal amount, the decree holder is entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards principal amount due under the decree. On such appropriation, if the part amount is appropriated towards principal to that extent interest would cease on that part of the principal and there is no reopening of the adjustment after such part payment and its appropriation. In view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited (1 supra) is not helpful to the petitioner/judgment debtor. 21. In view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited (1 supra) is not helpful to the petitioner/judgment debtor. 21. Applying the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (12th supra) to the facts of the present case, it would be noticed that there was no direction in the decree with regard to appropriation nor the petitioner/judgment debtor had specified the amounts with respect to appropriation towards a particular head. Thus, the question as to whether the judgment debtor's directions for appropriation are accepted by the decree holder does not arise. It is, therefore, open for the decree holder to apply the normal rule of appropriation viz. first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards principal. The point No.2 is answered against the petitioner/judgment debtor. 22. The petitioner/judgment debtor had paid 1/3rd of the decretal amount and costs on 12.10.2001 and the last payment made by the judgment debtor is on 30.08.2006. This payment is also without any directions with regard to appropriation. I am, therefore, of the view that the decree holder would be justified in appropriating the amounts by following the normal rule, as already held above, in terms of the decree as modified by the appellate Court as only the invoice amount of Rs.2,85,916/- carries interest at 18% per annum from the date of invoice i.e. 12.08.1994. Item 2 in the calculations approved by the executing Court in Para 5 of its order in E.A.No.371 of 2006, therefore, needs to be revised and after giving adjustment and appropriation to the amount paid by the decree holder, the liability, if any, of the judgment debtor on the date of EP has to be worked out. All the review petitions are, therefore, allowed and the review E.As filed in each EP seeking review of the orders of the executing Court in the E.As filed by the decree holder (E.A.No.371 of 2006, which is subject matter of C.R.P.No.250 of 2009) and like orders in EPs in each of the other CRPs are remitted back to the executing Court. Both the parties shall file fresh calculation memos in the light of the directions herein contained and the executing Court shall consider the calculation memos and pass appropriate orders. 23. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. Both the parties shall file fresh calculation memos in the light of the directions herein contained and the executing Court shall consider the calculation memos and pass appropriate orders. 23. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.