JUDGMENT

R. M. SAHAI, J. :—The question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala is whether the decretal amount deposited by the judgment-debtor in pursuance of an order passed by this Court is to be adjusted towards the principal amount due first or against interest and other charges.

2. The amounts due under the Land Acquisition Award passed by the Court in 1985 comprised of enhanced market value, solatium at 15% and interest at 4% on the additional amount. In cross appeal filed by the appellant, the State and the company the enhancement of market value was affirmed but the appellant was further granted solatium at 30% of the entire market value, additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and interest under the amended Section 28 at 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years. The company challenged the order of the High Court by way of Special Leave Petition in this Court in which an order was passed to the following effect :

"Issue notice confined to the question of admissibility of enhanced compensation with reference to the provisions of the Amended Act, 1984. The learned Attorney General assured us that the compensation as made in the award has either been paid or will be paid and to consider the tenability of adoption of uniform rate of compensation notwithstanding the extent of land acquired."

Later on, the Court granted the stay order which reads as under:-

"The collections of the enhanced compensation, solatium and interest payable by the Petitioner herein pursuant to the judgment and order dated the Ist August, 1986, of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in L.A.A. Nos. referred to above be and is hereby stayed."

As a result of the stay order granted by this Court, the respondent did not deposit any amount. Therefore, the appellant filed an application for clarification of the order which was disposed of on 7th December, 1987 with following observations :

"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Our order does not grant any stay of claims of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as enhanced by the reference Court under Section 20 of Kerala Land Acquisition Act. What has been actually stayed is disbursement of the compensation to the extent it has been escalated by referring to the Amending Act,1984 by the High Court. The entire compensation not covered by our present clarification shall be paid within six weeks without demanding any security. C.M.P. is disposed of".

After the Order was clarified on 7th December, 1987, the respondent deposited the amount on 9th January, 1988. The appeal was dismissed on 12th September, 1989. After the dismissal of appeal, the appellant put the decree in execution in October, 1989 and claimed that after deducting the amount deposited by the respondent towards amount due, they were liable to be paid the balance with interest as directed by the Court. It was objected as the respondent having deposited the decretal amount it was liable to pay only the amount which was stayed by this Court, namely, the escalations by the amending Act of 1984 and the interest thereon. Both the appellant and respondent filed statements showing calculations of the figure arrived at by them. The executing Court allowed the application on the ratio laid down by this Court in Meghraj v. Mst.Bayabai, AIR 1970 SC 161. In revision filed by the respondent the order was set aside. The High Court held that even though Order XXI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code was amended in 1976, yet the principle laid down by this Court on the unamended provisions still applied where the judgment-debtor did not specify as to how the amount deposited was to be approrpriated. But that principal was held not to be available, in this case, as this Court having directed the respondent to deposit the amount as awarded by the reference Court and what was stayed was the enhancement m