ORDER : Being aggrieved by the order dated 5-10-2012 passed in a Execution M.J.C. No. 44/12 by District Judge, Burhanpur, petitioner has preferred this revision. 2. The facts unfolded to the present case are the applicant filed a dispute before the arbitrator claiming a sum of Rs. 1,05,65,500/-. After filing the reply and on adjudication of the dispute the award was passed on 14-4-2000 refusing the claim as demanded, but to allow the refund of balance amount of security Rs. 20,59,800/- deposited with Nepa Limited, deducting the litigation expenses, arrears of rent and electricity charges of the accommodation let out to the claimant Rs. 6,10,500/-. It is also held that the balance amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum, and claimant shall vacate the Coal block on or before 30-4-2000. Against the award, claimant as well as Nepa Limited both filed the appeals bearing M.A. No. 363/2001 and M.A. No. 868/2001. Upon analogous hearing, this Court vide order dated 2-2-2012, dismissed the same but during pendency of those appeals, as per order dated 30-10-2001, recovery of the balance amount was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount by Nepa Limited within a period of 10 days in the executing Court. The Court also permitted to withdraw’ the amount so deposited after furnishing personal undertaking and surety to re-deposit of the said amount, if directed by the Court. 3. It is not in dispute except to deposit the 50% amount, remaining amount and to deposit the half of the amount within the time prescribed under the order of this Court interest @ 18% has been calculated and paid. However, in terms of Order 21, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, objection was raised before the executing Court that mere deposit of the amount under the interim order of the High Court would not amount to withdraw the interest on the said amount from the date of quashing of the interim order by the High Court. It is urged that the interest on the said amount also is payable till it is realized in full satisfaction from the date of its deposit till passing the final order by the High Court in the appeal. 4. It is urged that the interest on the said amount also is payable till it is realized in full satisfaction from the date of its deposit till passing the final order by the High Court in the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing Nepa Limited contends that on filing Appeal No. 363/2001, the High Court vide order dated 30-10-2001 stayed the execution of the remaining amount subject to deposit of 50% amount. The decree holder was granted liberty to realize the said amount. He has withdrawn the amount on furnishing the security as directed by the Court, however, on dismissing the appeal by the High Court, he would not be entitled to claim interest on 50% amount deposited by the Nepa Limited as per interim order of the Court claiming interest thereon. It is urged that the deposit made in the Court would be treated to be a deposit under Order 21, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim any interest and the executing Court has rightly dismissed the execution on full satisfaction. 5. It is not in dispute that after dismissal of the appeal filed by Nepa Limited, the remaining decreetal amount along with the interest has been paid. In the facts of the present case, the only question arises for consideration is, as per order dated 30-10-2001 passed in the appeal of Nepa Limited, on deposit of 50% amount, the execution of the remaining amount shall remain stayed, would lead to deposit as specified under Order 21, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is further required to be seen that after deposit of the said amount, if it is withdrawn by the decree holder subject to furnishing the security, would cease payment of interest by the Nepa Limited on the said 50% deposit. 6. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties first of all, the questions put for consideration relates back to the objection submitted by the petitioner under Order 21, Rule 1 and sub-rule (4) of Civil Procedure Code. Thus, to understand the letter and spirit of the said provision, it is reproduced below for ready reference— 1. Modes of paying money under decree. Thus, to understand the letter and spirit of the said provision, it is reproduced below for ready reference— 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) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (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) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On perusal of the aforesaid, it may be very well understood that Rule 1 deals with the payment under decree and its mode as specified in Rule 1(a) and (c). In all, Rule 1 makes it clear that all money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows. Under Clause (a) the awarded amount is required to be deposited in the Court who has to execute the decree or it may be sent by postal money order or through a bank. Clause (b) do not apply to the facts of the case, however, clause (c) applies whereby in case deposit of all money has not been made in the executing Court and not offered by postal money order or through the bank then the Court who made the decree directs in the manner it may be deposited. It is relevant to point out here that clause (c) emphasize the fact that the deposit of the money under decree as directed may be by the Court which made the decree. Sub-rule (2) makes it clear that if the payment is satisfied under Clause (a) and (c) of sub-rule (1) the judgment debtor is required to give notice to decree holder through the Court or by registered post under acknowledgement due. Sub-rule (2) makes it clear that if the payment is satisfied under Clause (a) and (c) of sub-rule (1) the judgment debtor is required to give notice to decree holder through the Court or by registered post under acknowledgement due. Under sub-rule (4), it is apparent that as per the judgment under the decree and the mode so specified under sub-rule (1)(a) and (c) if opted by the judgment debtor then interest shall cease to run from the date of service of notice referred to in sub-rule (1). However, in the facts of the present case, the moot question crop-up for determination is that after passing the award on 14-4-2000, the deposit made by Nepa mill under the interim order dated 30-10-2001 of half of the awarded amount subject to furnishing of security for receiving the same by the respondent would fall within the purview of Order 21, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals the connotation “cease to run” for “interest from the date of service of the notice” as referred in sub-rule (2) Order 21. In the context of the facts of the case and to elucidate, the real meaning and object of introducing Order 21, Rule 1 sub-rule (2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, the guidance may be taken from various judgments of High Courts as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. In the case of O.RM.P.RM. Ramanathan Chettiar v. P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1960 Madras 207 (F.B.), the issue came for consideration whether the payment made under some conditions for drawing the money would fall within the purview of Order 21, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. The Full Bench of Madras High Court has observed— “Where money is deposited under an order of Court, the terms of the deposit would be governed by the order. If for example an order grants only a time for deposit with no other restriction, the deposit made would go in satisfaction of the decree. If, on the other hand, the order imposes a condition on the decree-holder drawing the money like furnishing of security, there would be an impediment to the satisfaction of the decree. The mere fact that the decree-holder furnished security would not affect the question as by the order of the Court it could be deemed to have been made only provisionally subject to the result of the pending proceedings. The mere fact that the decree-holder furnished security would not affect the question as by the order of the Court it could be deemed to have been made only provisionally subject to the result of the pending proceedings. The Court referring to the decisions in ILR 4 Cal. 6 and ILR 41 Made 1053 : AIR 1919 Mad. 607 held that the ratio of those judgments apply Manoj Kumar Agrawal v. Nepa Ltd., Nepanagar through its CMD Civil Revision No. 368/2012 whereby it is made clear that if the proceedings terminate in favour of the decree-holder, the monies would stand transferred to him on the date, thereof. The conditions imposed by the order would then cease.” Dealing with a vice-versa situation of the case in hand, it is said that the order puts a restriction on the appellant drawing the money. That could not be held to be a deposit under Order 21, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code but one under the order of Court. The money deposited could be deemed to be a payment to or a realization on behalf of the appellant only when the said proceedings wherein the interim direction has been issued have been decided finally. In the said case, other side has approached before the Supreme Court against the Full Bench judgment. The Apex Court in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar v. O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1968 SC 1047 , the Court held as under:— “On principle, it appears to us that the facts of a judgment-debtors depositing a sum in Court to purchase peace by way of stay of execution of the decree on terms that the decree-holder can draw it out on furnishing security, does not pass title to the money to the decree-holder. He can if he likes take the money out in terms of the order but so long as he does not do it, there is nothing to prevent the judgment-debtor from taking it out by furnishing other security, say, of immovable property, if the Court allows him to do so and on his losing the appeal putting the decretal amount in Court in terms of Order 21, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code in satisfaction of the decree. The real effect of deposit of money in Court as was done in this case is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties pending the disposal of the appeal. The decree-holder could only take it out on furnishing security which means that the payment was not in satisfaction of the decree and the security could be proceeded against by the judgment-debtor in case of his success in the appeal. Pending the determination of the same, it was beyond the reach of the judgment-debtor. The last contention raised on behalf of the respondent was that at any rate the decree-holder cannot claim any amount by way of interest after the deposit of the money in Court. There is no substance in this point because the deposit in this case was not unconditional and the decree-holder was not free to withdraw it whenever he liked even before the disposal of the appeal. In case he wanted to do so, he had to give security in terms of the order. The deposit was not in terms of Order 21, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and as such, there is no question of the stoppage of interest after the deposit.” 8. Similar issue has come for consideration before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Bhai Sardar Singh and sons, C.M. No. 5462/2007 in FAO(OS) 93/2002 and EFA(OS) 9/2007 decided on 16-3-2009. The Court held that the act of making payment by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder under Rule 1 of Order 21 would require a positive act on the part of the judgment-debtor of either depositing “into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree” or to make payment out of Court to the decree-holder through a postal money or through a bank or by any other mode “wherein payment is evidenced in writing”, unless the Court which made the decree otherwise directs. The submission of the judgment-debtor regarding deposit of the amount would result in the stoppage of accrual of any further interest from the date of deposit was also found meritless in terms of the Apex Court judgment in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra). 9. The submission of the judgment-debtor regarding deposit of the amount would result in the stoppage of accrual of any further interest from the date of deposit was also found meritless in terms of the Apex Court judgment in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra). 9. In another judgment Delhi High Court in the case of Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. v. Arvind Construction Company Ltd. decided on 29-5-2009 has re-stated the same view in the context of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Court has elucidated the same principle as laid down in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhai Sardar Singh and Sons (supra). In the case of Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Ltd., Ex. P. 403/2010 and EA Nos. 734/2010, 735/2010, 353/2011 decided on 13-1-2012 again relying upon the judgment of Bhai Sardar Singh (supra) held that deposit, if any, made under conditional order of the Court, would not be termed as deposit under Order 21, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. 10. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Sea Stream Navigation Ltd. v. LMJ International Ltd., G.A. No. 3333 of 2011, G.A. No. 2430 of 2012 and E.C. No. 28 of 2003 decided on 5-2-2013 restated the position of law in the context of referring basic principle of Order 21, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code relying upon judgment of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457. The Court observed that “mere deposit made under an order of Court, does not in the opinion qualify for exemption with regard to running of interest. It is stated that the deposit should be unconditional to the credit of the decree”. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., 1998 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 3 : 1999 AIR SCW 53 has considered the issue that deposit made under the interim order may cease to pay the interest by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder on dismissal of the said proceedings. The Apex Court in para-18 has observed thus : — 18. The same considerations must weight with the Court when interim orders are passed in such petitions. The party at whose instance interim orders are obtained has to be made accountable for the consequences of the interim order. The interim order could delay the project, jettison finely worked financial arrangements and escalate costs. The same considerations must weight with the Court when interim orders are passed in such petitions. The party at whose instance interim orders are obtained has to be made accountable for the consequences of the interim order. The interim order could delay the project, jettison finely worked financial arrangements and escalate costs. Hence the petitioner asking for interim orders, in appropriate cases should be asked to provide security for any increase in cost as a result of such delay, or any damages suffered by the opposite party in consequences of an interim order. Otherwise public detriment may outweigh public benefit in granting such interim orders. Stay order or injunction order, if issued, must be moulded to provide for restitution. 12. After analytical discussion to the spirit of the provision of Order 21, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and as per judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and also Madras High Court, Calcutta High Court and Delhi High Court, it is apparent that the deposit, if any, made by the judgment-debtor under the directions of the Court while passing the interim order, it would not be a deposit within the purview of Order 21, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. After pronouncing the judgment, Order 21 denotes the execution of decree showing “Modes of Paying money under decree”. Rule 1 starts with connotation “all money payable under the decree shall be paid as follows: The mode to deposit the same in a Court whose duty it is to execute the decree or send to that Court by postal money order or through Bank or otherwise as the Court, which made the decree, directs. Thus, considering the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, the deposit made by Nepa Limited as per the interim order dated 30-10-2001 passed in M.A. No. 363/2001 seeking interim relief and finally the said appeal was dismissed without issuing any direction, would not amounting to deposit for the purpose of Order 21, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The finding recorded by the executing Court in the order impugned is not in accordance with the spirit of Order 21, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and its interpretation made by the Apex Court and various High Courts, therefore, in my considered opinion, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 13. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order impugned passed by the executing Court stands set aside. It is directed that the trial Court shall calculate the amount of interest on the 50% amount Rs. 7,78,280/- @ 18% from the date of its deposit in terms of the award as per interim order dated 30-10-2001 and shall take appropriate steps restoring the execution case for satisfaction of the award. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their cost.