ORDER : G.RADHA RANI, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - Judgment Debtor (for short "J.Dr.") No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2018 passed in E.P.No.30 of 2013 in O.P.No.1948 of 2000 by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that O.P.NO.1948 of 2000 was filed by the respondent No.1 - decree holder (for short "D.Hr.") claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a car accident and the said O.P. was decreed awarding compensation of Rs.27,20,000/- with interest and costs of Rs.29,157/- by order and decree dated 21.03.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, both the claimant as well as the Insurance Company preferred appeals vide M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2772 of 2007 and 198 of 2008 respectively, which were dismissed by order dated 01.02.2011 confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. At the stage of admission, the Division Bench of the High Court granted interim stay on condition of depositing half of the decretal amount together with interest and costs within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of the order in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.376 of 2008 in M.A.C.M.A.No.198 of 2008 dated 07.02.2008. The Insurance Company complied the said order by depositing Rs.13,35,000/- (Rs.13,60,000/- (-) Rs.25,000/-) being half of the decretal amount plus Rs.7,82,429/- towards proportionate interest and Rs.14,579/- towards proportionate costs, aggregating Rs.21,32,008/- in addition to the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- paid on 26.10.2007 as a precondition for filing the appeal. 2.1. After the dismissal of the appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.198 of 2008 dated 01.02.2011, the Insurance Company deposited the remaining half of the decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs on 01.03.2012 Rs.25,28,716/- (comprising of Rs.13,60,000/- towards 50% of the decretal amount, Rs.11,54,137 towards proportionate interest and Rs.14,579/- towards proportionate costs). 2.2. Subsequently, the D.Hr. - claimant filed I.A.No.2150 of 2012 to amend the decree stating that he filed O.P.No.456 of 1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "MACT"), Anantapur on 22.12.1995 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- and later filed transfer petition vide Transfer C.M.P.No.50 of 2000 before the High Court, which was allowed on 19.06.2000 and the O.P. was transferred to II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and re-numbered as O.P.No.1948 of 2000. In the order and decree passed by the Tribunal, the date of filing O.P. was recorded as 25.10.2000 instead of 22.12.1995 by oversight, which also missed his attention either at the time of filing appeal or at the time of disposal of appeal. The said amendment petition was allowed on 28.02.2013. Thereafter, the claimant-Decree Holder filed E.P.No.30 of 2013 by filing calculation memo claiming Rs.12,46,671/- by the date of filing E.P. In the calculation memo, the claimant had shown the amounts deposited by the petitioner - Insurance Company appropriated towards interest and costs initially and thereafter towards the principal and claimed Rs.12,46,671/-. 2.3. The Insurance Company filed its counter and opposed the said calculation stating that the amounts deposited by the Insurance Company towards the decretal amount with interest and costs as per the order of the High Court were already withdrawn by the claimant, as such it would amount to satisfaction of the decree. After amendment of the decree, the claimant would be entitled for the difference of interest from the original date of filing, to the date of filing recorded in the original decree i.e. from 29.12.1995 to 25.10.2000 only. After amendment of decree, the Insurance Company deposited the difference of interest on 06.12.2013 after deducting Income Tax at source and paid Rs.9,52,368/- towards difference in interest for the period from 29.12.1995 to 25.10.2000. After the decree was amended from 25.10.2000 to 22.12.1995, taking undue advantage of the same, even after satisfying the decree on prior occasion and withdrawing the entire decretal amount, the D.Hr. re-calculated the amounts by appropriating the amount already deposited towards interest and arrived at the figure, as such opposed the same. 3. The learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on hearing both the learned counsel representing the parties, ordered the E.P as follows: 1) Firstly, the D.Hr. has to calculate half of the award amount together with interest thereon and half of the costs awarded by the Court. 2) Out of the deposited amounts, the D.Hr. has to appropriate the amount first towards interest, then towards costs and subsequently towards principal amount. 3) If by applying the above formula, if any amount becomes due under half of the decretal amount, it has to be added to the principal amount due as on 20.02.2008 and the same formula has to be applied till realization of the entire amount. 4) The D.Hr. 3) If by applying the above formula, if any amount becomes due under half of the decretal amount, it has to be added to the principal amount due as on 20.02.2008 and the same formula has to be applied till realization of the entire amount. 4) The D.Hr. is not entitled for refund of the TDS deducted by J.Dr.No.2, as he did not furnish Income Tax particulars and PAN particulars to the J.Dr.No.2. 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the Insurance Company preferred this revision petition. 5. Heard Smt.A.Anasuya, learned counsel for the revision petitioner – Insurance Company and Sri Koti Venkataramana, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - D.Hr. 6. The respondent No.2 - J.Dr.No.1 was shown as not necessary party. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner - Insurance Company submitted that by the date of filing the petition by the D.Hr. for amendment of the decree to amend the date of filing of O.P. at Anantapur under Section 152 of CPC , the decree was already satisfied. The portion of interest payable for the difference of period from the amended date till the O.P. was transferred to Hyderabad, was worked out by the petitioner - Insurance Company at Rs.9,52,368/- and accordingly, the petitioner - Insurance Company deposited a cheque bearing No.966047 dated 06.12.2013 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Somajiguda, Hyderabad in full satisfaction by paying the difference of interest amount of Rs.7,61,894/- after deducting TDS of Rs.1,90,474/- at source. As the decree was already satisfied and O.P. was amended after satisfying the decree, only interest for the difference of period was payable, but appropriation towards interest could not be permitted. The court below erred in allowing the E.P. by ordering to appropriate the amount deposited towards interest first, then towards costs and subsequently towards principal amount. The court below failed to see that the respondent - D.Hr. received the entire compensation awarded with interest and costs during March, 2012 itself when the petitioner - Insurance Company deposited balance 50% of the decretal amount with proportionate interest and half of costs awarded, which was withdrawn by the respondent - D.Hr., and the same would amount to satisfying the decree. The court below ought to have dismissed the E.P. holding that the D.Hr. The court below ought to have dismissed the E.P. holding that the D.Hr. was not entitled to re- calculate the interest after the decree was satisfied and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board and Another v. Kurien E.Kalathil and Another , [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-66] and of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Vinod Kumar Tyagi , [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-13] 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - D.Hr. contended that there was no illegality in the order passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said order was passed basing upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Kala Bharathi and Others v. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited , [2014 LawSuit (SC) 229] , wherein it was held that the D.Hr. is entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards interest, then towards costs and subsequently towards principal amount due under the decree. As such, no interference was required in the said order passed by the court below and prayed to dismiss the revision. 9. As seen from the facts of the case, the respondent - D.Hr. met with an accident in the year 1995 and filed O.P.No.456 of 1995 before the MACT, Anantapur and later the said O.P. was transferred to II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as per the orders in Transfer C.M.P.No.50 of 2000 dated 19.06.2000 and re-numbered as O.P.No.1948 of 2000. After transfer of O.P. from Anantapur to Hyderabad, the respondent - claimant filed I.A.No.691 of 2002 for enhancement of compensation from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.78,92,000/- and the same was allowed by order dated 13.06.2002. An award was passed in O.P.No.1948 of 2000 on 21.03.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.27,20,000/- with future interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs of Rs.29,157/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred appeal vide M.A.C.M.A.No.2772 of 2007 and the Insurance Company preferred appeal vide M.A.C.M.A.No.198 of 2008. At the stage of admission, an interim stay was granted by the Division Bench of this Court on condition of depositing half of the decretal amount together with interest and costs within a period of six (06) weeks as per the orders in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.376 of 2008 in M.A.C.M.A.No.198 of 2008 dated 07.02.2008. At the stage of admission, an interim stay was granted by the Division Bench of this Court on condition of depositing half of the decretal amount together with interest and costs within a period of six (06) weeks as per the orders in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.376 of 2008 in M.A.C.M.A.No.198 of 2008 dated 07.02.2008. The petitioner - Insurance Company complied the said order by depositing Rs.13,35,000/- towards half of the decretal amount after deducting an amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was deposited as statutory deposit paid on 26.10.2007 as a precondition for filing the appeal plus Rs.7,82,429/- towards proportionate interest and Rs.14,579/- towards proportionate costs, aggregating Rs.21,32,008/-. This Court dismissed both the appeals by order dated 01.02.2011 confirming the orders of the Tribunal. 10. After dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner - Insurance Company deposited the balance half of the decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs on 01.03.2012 depositing Rs.25,28,716/- (comprising Rs.13,60,000/- towards 50% of decretal amount, Rs11,54,137/- towards proportionate interest and Rs.14,579/- towards proportionate costs). The details of the payments made by the petitioner - Insurance Company are as under: Date Details Total 26.10.2007 Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 20.02.2008 Rs.13,35,000/- + Rs.7,82,429/- + Rs.14,579/- Rs.20,51,417/- 01.03.2012 Rs.13,60,000/- + Rs.11,54,137/- + Rs.14,579/- Rs.22,97,888/- Rs.27,20,000/- + Rs.19,36,566/- + Rs.29,158/- = Rs.43,74,305/- 11. Subsequently, the respondent - D.Hr. - claimant noticing that the date of filing of O.P. was recorded as 25.10.2000 instead of 22.12.1995 in the order and decree passed by the Tribunal by oversight filed I.A.No.2150 of 2012 to amend the decree. The said petition was allowed on 28.02.2013. Thereafter, the respondent - D.Hr. filed E.P.No.30 of 2013 and filed the calculation memo appropriating the amounts deposited by the petitiner - Insurance Company towards interest and costs thereafter towards the principal and claimed Rs.12,46,671/- by the date of filing of EP. In support of his contention, the respondent - D.Hr. relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Kala Bharathi and Others v. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited (cited supra). 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case while answering the question whether the amount deposited by the J.Dr. in a decree is to be adjusted first towards interest or towards principal decretal amount, held as follows: "26. relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Kala Bharathi and Others v. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited (cited supra). 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case while answering the question whether the amount deposited by the J.Dr. in a decree is to be adjusted first towards interest or towards principal decretal amount, held as follows: "26. In view of above and more particularly keeping in view the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [ (2006) 8 SCC 457 ], where considering an identical question in respect of Order XXI Rule 1 of the CPC , it was held that if the amount deposited by the judgment debtor falls short of the decretal amount, the decree- holder is entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards interest, then towards costs and subsequently towards principal amount due under the decree; we are of the opinion that the appellants herein are entitled to the amount awarded by the Executing Court, as the amounts deposited by the judgment debtor fell short of the decretal amount. After such appropriation, the decree-holder is entitled to interest only to the extent of unpaid principal amount. Hence, interest be calculated on the unpaid principal amount." 13. Relying upon the said judgment and the mode of appropriation as stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trial court passed the impugned order. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of Order XXI Rule 1 of CPC , which prescribes the mode of paying money under decree and held that: "14. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it amply clear that the scope of Order XXI Rule 1 of the CPC is that the judgment debtor is required to pay the decretal amount in one of the modes specified in sub- rule (1) thereof. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 provides that once payment is made under sub-rule (1), it is the duty of the judgment debtor to give notice to the decree-holder through the Court or directly to him by registered post acknowledgement due. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 merely indicates that in case money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1) thereof, certain particulars are required to be accurately incorporated while making such payment. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 merely indicates that in case money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1) thereof, certain particulars are required to be accurately incorporated while making such payment. Sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 1 states from which date, interest shall cease to run in case amount is paid under clause (a) or (c) of sub-rule (1), interest shall cease to run from the date of service of notice as indicated under sub-rule (2); while in case of out of court payment to the decree- holder by way of any of the modes mentioned under clause (b) of sub-rule (1), interest shall cease to run from the date of such payment. 15. The language contained in the aforesaid sub-rules clearly indicates the appropriation of amount to be made in case the decree contains a specific clause, specifying the manner in which the money deposited to be appropriated. Sub-rule (1)(c) of Rule 1 indicates the money deposited to be appropriated as per the direction of the Court, if there is a provision in that behalf. In the absence of specific direction with regard to appropriation, then only the manner of appropriation would arise for consideration. Sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 1 indicate the procedure to be followed when the deposit is made either under clause (a) or (b) of sub-rule (1) thereof, but it does not leave any scope for interpretation with regard to appropriation of deposited amount by the decree-holder. 16. In this regard, it is also pertinent to extract Rule 472 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 (for short, ‘the A.P.M.V. Rules’), which is as under: “472. Enforcement of an award of the Claims Tribunal:- Subject to the provisions of Section 174, the Claims Tribunal shall, for the purpose of enforcement of its award, have all the powers of a Civil Court in the execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as if the award were a decree for the payment of money passed by such Court in a Civil Suit.” The above-said Rule indicates that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is to be treated as if the decree for the payment of money passed by the Civil Court in a civil suit. Hence, in view of the specific provision contained in the A.P.M.V. Rules, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is to be treated as a money decree. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Poonam Pahwa [1997 AIR (SC) 2951], this Court held that in executing the award of the Claims Tribunal, Executing Court is competent to invoke the beneficial provision under Order XXI Rule 1 of C.P.C." 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court also considered the judgments of the Privy Council in Venkatadri Appa Rao v. Parthasarathi Appa Rao [1922 AIR (PC) 233], Rai Bahadur Sethnemichand v. Seth Radha Kishen [1922 AIR (PC) 26] and its earlier judgment in Meghraj v. Bayabai [ 1969 (2) SCC 274 ], Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Poonam Pahwa [ AIR 1997 (SC) 2951 ] and Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate (ICDS) Limited v. Smithaben H.Patel and Others [ 1999 (3) SCC 80 ] and of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [ 2006 (8) SCC 457 ] , wherein the principles regarding rule of appropriation towards decretal amount is stated as follows: a) The general rule of appropriation towards a decretal amount was that such an amount was to be adjusted strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such directions, adjustment be made firstly towards payment of interest and costs and thereafter towards payment of the principle amount subject, of course, to any agreement between the parties. b) The legislative intent in enacting sub rules (4) and (5) is clear to the points that interest should cease to run on the deposit made by the judgment debtor and notice given or on the amount being tendered outside the Court in the manner provided in Order 21 Rule 1 sub clause (D). c) If the payment made by the judgment debtors falls short of the decretal amount, the decree holder will be entitled to apply the general rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount deposited towards the interest, then towards costs and finally towards the principal amount due under the decree. d) Thereafter, no further interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal. d) Thereafter, no further interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal. In other words, if a part of the principal amount has been paid along with interest due thereon as on the date of issuance of notice of deposit of interest on the part of the principal sum will cease to run thereafter. e) In case where there is a shortfall in deposit of the principal amount, the decree holder would be entitled to adjust interest and costs first and then balance towards the principal and beyond that the decree holder cannot seek to reopen the entire transaction and proceed to recalculate the interest on the whole of the principal amount and seek for re-appropriation." 15. Thus, as seen from the above principles stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, only in case where there is a shortfall in deposit of the principal amount, the D.Hr. would be entitled to adjust the amount first towards interest and costs and then the balance amount towards the principal and the D.Hr. cannot seek to re- open the entire transaction and proceed to re-calculate the interest on the whole of principal amount and seek for re-appropriation. As per the facts of the present case, the petitioner - Insurance Company deposited half of the decretal amount with interst and costs as per the orders of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.376 of 2008 in M.A.C.M.A.No.198 of 2008 on 20.02.2008 and after dismissal of the appeal deposited the balance decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs on 01.03.2012 and the respondent - D.Hr. received the entire compensation awarded with interest and costs by March, 2012 itself. Subsequently, after the amendment petition filed by the respondent - D.Hr. to amend the decree, as the date of filing the petition was wrongly recorded in the decree as 25.10.2000 instead of 22.12.1995 was allowed, the petitioner - Insurance Company deposited the difference of interest after deducting Income Tax at source and paid Rs.9,52,368/- as shown below: 06.12.2013 :- Rs.7,61,894/- + Rs.1,90,474/- (Income Tax) = Rs.9,52,368/- (Difference of interest after amendment of decree from 29.12.1995 to 25.10.2000) 16. The court below held that the D.Hr. was not entitled for refund of the TDS deducted by the J.Dr.No.2, as the D.Hr. did not furnish the Income Tax particulars and PAN particulars to the J.Dr.No.2. The order of the court below on that aspect became final. The court below held that the D.Hr. was not entitled for refund of the TDS deducted by the J.Dr.No.2, as the D.Hr. did not furnish the Income Tax particulars and PAN particulars to the J.Dr.No.2. The order of the court below on that aspect became final. As such, we are now concerned only with regard to the appropriation of the amount as per the calculation made by the D.Hr. first towards the interest thereon thereafter towards costs and subsequently towards the principal amount is proper or not? 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board (for short "KSEB") and Another v. Kurien E.Kalathil and Another (cited supra), wherein also there was a dispute between the appellant - Kerala State Electricity Board and the respondent - contractor with regard to the appropriation of amounts deposited by the KSEB, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the manner of appropriation by the respondent - contractor as shown in the calculation memo filed by him by showing adjustment of payments firstly towards interest and then towards principal was in clear violation of the directions given by the Court to make payment under Ex.P20. In the original Ex.P20, when respondent -contractor himself has expressly adjusted all payments made by the appellant towards principal and not towards interest, the respondent - contractor cannot turn round and change the method of calculation by showing the adjustment of payments made first against the interest and then towards the principal. This important aspect of change in the method of adjustment/appropriation was held to be lost sight by the High Court and the direction of the High Court to make further payment of Rs.4,12,58,224/- under Ex.P20 is held unsustainable. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court on considering the Constitution Bench Judgment in Gurpreeth Singh v. Union of India [ 2006 (8) SCC 457 ] followed in BHEL's case held that: “18. As held in Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh's case followed in BHEL's case, if there is a direction in the decree as to the mode of appropriation of payment, then appropriation of any payment made by the judgment-debtor has to be strictly in accordance with the direction contained in the decree. As held in Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh's case followed in BHEL's case, if there is a direction in the decree as to the mode of appropriation of payment, then appropriation of any payment made by the judgment-debtor has to be strictly in accordance with the direction contained in the decree. If there is no such direction in the decree, then the general principle is that where a judgment-debtor makes payment without making any indication as to how the payment is to be adjusted, it is the option of the creditor to make adjustment firstly towards the interest and then towards the principal. But if the judgment- debtor has indicated the manner in which the appropriation is to be made, then the creditor has no choice to apply the payment in a different manner. The general principle of mode of appropriation firstly in payment of interest and thereafter in payment of principal amount is subject to the exception i.e. the parties may agree to the adjustment of the payment in any other manner despite the decree. 19. In C.A.No.4092 of 2000, this Court directed payment as per Ex.P20. As held in Gurpreet Singh's case, the payment is to be appropriated strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree. In C.A.No.4092 of 2000, since this Court directed the payment as per Ex.P20 and therefore, the appropriation/adjustment of payment has to be made strictly as stated in Ex.P20. When the direction of the court is to make payment as per Ex.P20, the respondent-contractor cannot turn round and say that the amount received by him will be adjusted towards the interest first and then towards the principal.” 19. In the present case, the respondent - D.Hr. received the entire compensation awarded with interest and costs during March, 2012 itself. Only the interest part on the decretal amount for the period from 29.12.1995 to 25.10.2000 was not paid due to oversight. After an amendment petition filed by the respondent - claimant was allowed, the said interest amount was deposited by the petitioner - Insurance Company. The D.Hr. is not entitled to re-calculate the interest after the decree was satisfied. As such, the court below erred in passing the order directing the petitioner - Insurance Company to pay the amounts once again re-calculating the interest by appropriating the amounts deposited towards interest first. The D.Hr. is not entitled to re-calculate the interest after the decree was satisfied. As such, the court below erred in passing the order directing the petitioner - Insurance Company to pay the amounts once again re-calculating the interest by appropriating the amounts deposited towards interest first. The impugned order passed by the court below is against the principle of settled law that once the total award amount has been deposited by the J.Dr., the D.Hr. cannot take benefit of the amount paid towards interest for the period from 29.12.1995 to 25.10.2000 by re-opening the decree once again. Once the award amount was deposited in the Court, the interest would cease to run on the said award amount. As such, the petitioner - J.Dr.No.2 is not entitled to deposit any further amount and the lower court ought to have dismissed the EP. As the said order passed by the lower court is erroneous, the same is liable to be set aside. 20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 06.12.2018 passed in E.P.No.30 of 2013 in O.P.No.1948 of 2000 by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.