JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintained by the petitioners to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.8.2009, passed by learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, in Case No. RBT No. 40-S/10 of 2005. 2. The facts giving rise to this Civil Revision are that petitioners No.1 to 5 were awarded the work of construction of building known as Sahkar Bhawan near Transport Bhawan, Dogra Lodge, Shimla, for the purpose of office and printing press, vide letter dated 6.3.1992. The work was to be completed on or before 20.10.1992, but the contract was rescinded, vide notice dated 11.2.1995. Thereafter, arbitration proceedings were invoked by the petitioners and Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HP PWD, Solan, was appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator passed an award on 30.8.1999, awarding a sum of Rs.2,03,695/- alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum for 4 ½ years i.e. till the date of award. Respondent preferred objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which were registered as Arbitration Petition No.4-S/2 of 1999, the same were dismissed on 25.5.2001. Thereafter, on 2.9.2004 the petitioners filed an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to execute the award dated 30.8.1999. The respondent thereafter filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was alleged by the respondent in the objections that the award passed by the Arbitrator certain amounts had been released to the petitioners on different dates, as per details given below : Cheque No. Date Amount Bank 2118390 7.8.2001 Rs. 1,50,000/- H.P. State Cooperative Bank, The Mall, Shimla. 2143453 5.11.2001 Rs. 1,00,000/- -do- 22365267 25.9.2004 Rs. 1,17,667/- -do- The petitioners herein claimed interest on the balance amount of Rs.1,46,759.65 paise at the statutory rate of 18 % per annum, in terms of Section 31 (7) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 alongwith costs. The learned Court below called upon the parties to file calculations before it for effectively deciding the execution petition. The learned Court below, vide order dated 31.8.2009, has held that the balance amount of Rs.62,063/- including interest and other charges having been deposited, the execution petition has been dismissed as fully satisfied. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is unreasoned. 4. The learned Court below, vide order dated 31.8.2009, has held that the balance amount of Rs.62,063/- including interest and other charges having been deposited, the execution petition has been dismissed as fully satisfied. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is unreasoned. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the impugned order is reasoned one, as the Court has come to the conclusion that the balance amount has been awarded to the petitioners including interest and the execution petition was rightly dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of this case carefully. 6. The learned Court below has passed the impugned order dated 31.8.2009, which reads as under : “As per calculations made by this court, there remained balance of Rs.62,063/- including interest and all other charges which amount has been deposited. Therefore, the execution petition is dismissed being fully satisfied. File, after due completion be consigned to record room.” 7. This court could not come to any conclusion which was arrived at by the learned Court below whereby, it has come to the conclusion that the balance amount of Rs.62,063/- including interest was the only remaining amount. Without calculating the remaining amount there was no occasion for the learned Court below to have come to the conclusion that the decree stood fully satisfied. 8. In 2010 (15) SCC 101 titled Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Rajkot vs. Amul Industries Private Limited, wherein para-3 of the judgment reads as under : “3. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court very carefully and on consideration thereof, we are fully satisfied that the same is devoid of any reason. There is no discussion on the issues involved. A bare perusal of the said order would indicate that there is no discussion at all on the issues involved and the entire appeal was disposed of only by recording the following : “The counsel for the appellant has failed to show us that for eligibility to avail credit of duty, it is necessary that the assessee should have its own plant and machinery. In absence of that, we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.” 9. In absence of that, we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.” 9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 31.8.2009, passed by the learned Court below is unreasoned order. The only remedy to this Court is to remand the case to learned Court below to decide the question of interest afresh after hearing the parties and only after making proper calculation to pass a detailed order, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the execution petition is remanded back to the learned Court below. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 30th August, 2016. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any stands disposed of.