JUDGMENT : A.K.Rath, J. This petition challenges the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No.148 of 2016, whereby and whereunder learned appellate court directed the appellants-petitioners to pay court fees on Rs.2,91,229.40 p. with annual compound interest of 8% till the date of filing of the appeal. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 instituted C.S. No.548 of 2013 (III) before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack for realization of Rs.14,96,917.50 p. with P.I & F.I @ 18% per annum till realisation. The suit was decreed in part against defendants 1 and 2. It was held that defendants 1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs.2,91,229.40 p. with annual compound interest of 8% from 31.10.1990 till the date of realization of the amount. Felt aggrieved, defendants 1 and 2 filed RFA No.148 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. The appeal was valued at Rs.2,91,229.40 p. on which court fees of Rs.10,035/- was payable. A petition under Sec.148 CPC was filed for extension of time to pay the court fees. Respondents filed objection stating that under Sec.7 of the Court Fees Act, the appellants are liable to pay the court fees on the decreetal amount i.e. Rs.2,91,229.40 p. with interest. 3. Learned appellate court assigned the following reasons and directed the appellants to pay the court fees: "It clearly transpires that the lower court has also awarded interest upon the amount, which the lower Court has directed the appellant to pay to the respondents no.1 and 2. The interest forms a part of the decreetal amount. As such the appellants are liable to pay court fees upon the interest till the date of filing of the appeal. So, it is ordered that the appellants are liable to pay court fees upon Rs.2,91,229.40 paise with annual compound interest of 8% from 31.10.1990 till the date of filing of the Appeal. Office is directed to make calculation of the court fees payable." 4. Heard Mr. P.K. Routray along with Mr.J. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.N Senapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General for the State of Odisha. 5. Mr. Office is directed to make calculation of the court fees payable." 4. Heard Mr. P.K. Routray along with Mr.J. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.N Senapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General for the State of Odisha. 5. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court decreed the suit in part and directed defendants 1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,91,229.40 p. with annual compound interest of 8% from 31.10.1990 till the date of realization of the amount. Assailing the judgment and decree, defendants 1 and 2 filed RFA No.148 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. The appellants are liable to pay the court fees on the decreetal amount of Rs.2,91,229.40 p. Appellants have filed a petition under Sec.148 CPC for extension of time to pay the court fees of Rs,10,035/-. Learned appellate court travelled beyond its jurisdiction and directed the appellants to pay the court fees of Rs.2,91,229.40 p. with annual compound interest of 8% from 31.10.1990 till the date of filing of the appeal. To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mishrilal Tarachand Lodha, (1964) AIR SC 457. 6. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General for the State of Odisha submitted that the appellants are liable to pay the court fees on the decreetal amount. The decreetal amount includes the interest. 7. Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submitted that the appellants are liable to pay the court fees on Rs.2,91,229.40 p. with annual compound interest of 8% from 31.10.1990 till the date of filing of the appeal. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. 8. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to refer to the Constitution Bench decision of the apex Court in the case of Mishrilal Tarachand Lodha. The question arose before the apex Court whether the amount of interest decreed for the period subsequent to the institution of a suit comes within the expression 'amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute' in Art.I of Schedule I of the Bombay Court fees Act, 1959 for purposes of court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. The question arose before the apex Court whether the amount of interest decreed for the period subsequent to the institution of a suit comes within the expression 'amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute' in Art.I of Schedule I of the Bombay Court fees Act, 1959 for purposes of court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. The apex Court held that the amount of court-fee payable, therefore, depends on the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal. The defendant-appellant valued his claim at Rs.13,033- 6-6 and paid the requisite court-fee on that amount. It is obvious therefore that he disputes in appeal that part of the decree which awarded Rs.13,033-6-6 against him on account of principal and interest due up to the date of the institution of the suit. He did not dispute, according to the value of his claim, the amount of interest which could be found on calculation for the period between the date of the suit and the date of the decree at 4% per annum on a sum of Rs.10,120/- as had been awarded under the decree. Whether his appeal is competent or not without his including this amount in his claim in appeal, is a question different from that relating to the value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal. He does not dispute the decree for that amount and therefore the Court has not to decide about it and so the amount cannot be included in the amount of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal covered by the relevant expression. None of his grounds of appeal refers specifically to this amount of interest between the date of the suit and the date of the decree. This makes it further plain that he does not question the propriety of awarding of future interest or the rate at which it was awarded or even the amount on which it could be awarded. It is not possible to say, in these circumstances, that the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the appeal must include this amount of interest between the date of the suit and the date of the decree. 9. But then, in the instant case, defendants 1 and 2 assail the entire decree. The decision is distinguishable on facts. 10. It is not possible to say, in these circumstances, that the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the appeal must include this amount of interest between the date of the suit and the date of the decree. 9. But then, in the instant case, defendants 1 and 2 assail the entire decree. The decision is distinguishable on facts. 10. The learned trial court decreed the suit in part holding that defendants 1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs.2,91,229.40 p. with annual compound interest of 8% from the date of adjustment of the loan amount, i.e. 31.10.1990 till the date of realisation of the amount. Felt aggrieved, defendants 1 and 2 filed RFA No.148 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Decreetal amount inclues Rs.2,91,229.40 p. plus annual compound interest of 8% from 31.10.1990. Interest was awarded prior to institution of the suit. The interest forms a part of the decreetal amount and as such the defendants-appellants are liable to pay the court fees of Rs. Rs.2,91,229.40 p. plus interest as well. 11. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs.