Judgment : 1. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of an order (Food Corporation of India v. Richh Pal Swami, Civil Revision No.902 of 2010, order dated 13-9-2010 (P&H)) passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby Civil Revision No.902 of 2010 has been partly allowed and the matter remitted back to the executing court to recalculate the amount payable to the decree-holder and disburse the same out of the amount already deposited by the judgment-debtor. 2. The grievance of the appellant is limited to that part of the impugned judgment by which the High Court has held that the decree-holder was entitled to pendente lite interest @ 18% p.a. on a sum of Rs.6,61,133.76 representing the principal amount claimed in the suit. 3. Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court had fallen in error in holding that the court passing the decree had awarded pendente lite interest to the plaintiff decree-holder @ 18% p.a. as was claimed in the plaint. He drew our attention to the decree passed by the trial court to argue that the suit had been decreed for a sum of Rs.9,75,000 with future interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount till actual relisation thereof. Subsequently, however, by an order dated 14-1-2005, the executing court had interpreted the said decree to mean that the court had granted pendente lite interest also @ 12% p.a. the rate at which future interest was granted. It is submitted by Mr. Goel that in an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the rate of future interest had been reduced from 12% to 6% p.a. That being so, the rate of pendente lite interest would also stand reduced from 12% to 6%, on the logic given by the executing court in its order dated 14-1-2005. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Goel, in particular referred to the following passage from the executing court’s order dated 14-1-2005 in this regard: “When the court awarded the interest to the plaintiff/decree-holder on the principal amount till the date of institution of the suit and passed the order to the effect that the plaintiff will be entitled to future interest at the rate of 12% per annum, it can be deduced that court has awarded the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of the suit till the realization of the amount in question.” In the light of the above, it was contended by Mr. Goel that the High Court was in error in holding that pendente lite interest was awarded by the trial court @ 18% p.a. in favour of the plaintiff/decree-holder. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent decree-holder on the other hand submitted that on a true and correct interpretation of the decree passed by the trial court, it must be held that interest for the pendente lite period was awarded by the court @ 18% p.a. as was the case with the interest claimed for the pre-suit period which the trial court had awarded @ 18% p.a. 6.The trial court, it is apparent from a reading of the judgment and decree passed by it, did not make any specific direction regarding the award of pendente lite interest or the rate at which the same was awarded. It was only by reason of the order passed by the executing court on 14-1-2005 that the decree was interpreted to mean that the trial court had awarded interest pendente lite @ 12% p.a. We have our own reservations about the correctness of that interpretation. But we need not go into that aspect at this stage as both the parties have accepted the interpretation placed by the executing court on the decree under execution. 7. What cannot be disputed is that according to the said interpretation the rate of pendente lite interest and future interest was intended to be the same. Now if that be so, interest pendente lite would stand reduced to 6% once the rate for future interest was reduced to 6% by the appellate court. 7. What cannot be disputed is that according to the said interpretation the rate of pendente lite interest and future interest was intended to be the same. Now if that be so, interest pendente lite would stand reduced to 6% once the rate for future interest was reduced to 6% by the appellate court. A conjoint reading of the appellate court’s order modifying the rate of future interest and the executing court’s order dated 14-1-2005 would lead only to one conclusion that the rate of interest would be 6% p.a. pendente lite just as it was for the future. The High Court was thus in error in holding that the decree had awarded pendente lite interest @ 18% p.a. At any rate the judgment and decree passed by the trial court does not support that interpretation. 8. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court to the extent it records that interest @ 18% p.a. for the period during which the suit remained pending before the trial court has been awarded by the said court. It follows that the executing court shall calculate the amount payable to the decree-holder by taking a sum of Rs.6,61,132 as the principal amount decreed in favour of the plaintiff with interest @ 18% p.a. on the same awarded up to the date of filing of the suit. Interest pendente lite and future shall, however, be calculated on the principal amount of Rs.6,61,132 @ 6% p.a. The amount so determined shall be disbursed to the decree-holder out of the amount already deposited by the judgment-debtor. In the event of any excess being found, the same shall be refunded to the appellant just as deficit, if any, shall be made up by the appellant. No costs.