JUDGMENT 1.This revision at the instance of Insurance Company is directed order-dated 25.10.2004 passed in M.C.C. (Execution) No. 96/99 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ashta District Sehore; whereby, the Executing Court, taking into consideration the stipulation contained under Rule 1 of Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has held the judgment-debtor/Insurance Company liable for interest on the decretal amount from the date of deposit of decretal amount till the date when claimant was informed as to deposit of such amount. 2. Rule 1 of Order 21 CPC stipulates - "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, or 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, acknowledgement due. 3. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Poonam Pahwa, (1997) 6 SCC 100 , it has been held - 28. Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code as amended in 1976 expressly provides that the judgment debtor shall give notice of the deposit of the decretal amount to the decree holder either through the Court or directly to the decree holder. The obligation of giving the notice to the decree holder is not absolved by simply depositing the amount without taking steps to ensure service of the notice of such deposit to the decree holder through Court or otherwise. Therefore, the appellant cannot escape its liability to pay interest to the decree holder for the period between the date of deposit of the decretal amount and the date of notice of such deposit of the decree holder. ................. 34. After the amendment of Order XXI Rule 1 in 1976, there is no scope for any controversy as to the liability of the judgment debtor when the decretal amount is deposited in Court but the notice of such deposit is not given to the decree holder. ................. 34. After the amendment of Order XXI Rule 1 in 1976, there is no scope for any controversy as to the liability of the judgment debtor when the decretal amount is deposited in Court but the notice of such deposit is not given to the decree holder. It is imperative that the judgment debtor has to give notice to the decree holder about deposit for the decretal amount. Since motor accident in the instant case, had taken place on May 7, 1983, Order XXI Rule 1 as amended in 1976 is clearly applicable. Even otherwise also, the provision of Order XXI Rule 1 being a procedural law, amended provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 are applicable even if the accident had taken place prior to 1976 because such amendment of procedural law is retrospective in its operation. 4. In view of the stipulation contained under Order 21 Rule 1 CPC and the principle of law laid down in Poonam Pahwa (supra), the impugned order, directing the Insurance Company to pay interest on the decretal amount for the period when the amount was deposited till the date of notice of such deposit to the decree holder, cannot be faulted with. Consequently, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs.