1. It is said that the travails of a decree holder commence after he has obtained a decree in his favour. This case is no different. The case spans a period nearly two decades post the publication of an award in favour of the respondent/Decree Holder (DH). The captioned appeal has been filed to impugn the order dated 29.11.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in EA No. 295/1999. By the impugned judgment learned single Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant/ Judgment Debtor (JD) under Order 21 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code). The said application, i.e., EA No. 295/1999, was filed in Execution Petition No. 184/1995.

2. In the appeal before us, the neat question of law raised is: Whether the interest on the decree would cease to run on payments being made, towards satisfaction of the decree; albeit with notice to the decree holder, which does not specify, the manner of the appropriation of the sum deposited in court? In other words, at the time of deposit of moneys in court, of which notice is served on the decree holder, there is no condition attached that the deposit should be adjusted towards the principal sum included in the decree.

3. In order to appreciate the contentions, following brief facts are required to be noticed.

3.1 The appellant/ JD, which is a public sector undertaking, wholly owned by the Central Government, in December, 1985, awarded the work of construction of pipe foundation and sub-structure of railway-cum-road bridge across the river Baran for Merry-go-round/Rihand Nagar Super Thermal Power Project/ National Power Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter after referred collectively as the said work). Qua the said works, disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent which were referred to a sole arbitrator, one Sh. Ashok Trihan, General Manager, Engineering Services, New Delhi. The learned Arbitrator passed an award dated 25.12.1989. By virtue of the said award a sum of Rs 45,61,425/- alongwith interest at the rate of 15% from the date of the award till payment, was accorded, in favour of the respondent.

3.2 The respondent/DH took out proceedings, for filing the award in the court and for making the award, a rule of court. These proceedings were filed by the respondent/DH, in the court of Addl. Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Siddhi, Madhya Pradesh. The proceedings were numbered as: suit no. 2-B/191. The appellant/JD, filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short Arbitration Act) before the said court. Even though objection with regard to jurisdiction were taken, these proceedings culminated in an order dated 31.03.1994, whereby the award was made a rule of court.

3.3 Against the order dated 31.03.1994, an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act was preferred, in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur. By an interim order dated 11.05.1994, a single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, stayed the judgment and the decree carried in appeal to that court, pending adjudication of the appeal. By a subsequent order dated 21.09.1995, the appellant was directed to deposit the decretal amount in the trial court, within a period of two months. Simultaneously, permission was granted to the respondent/ DH to withdraw the moneys, on furnishing a bank guarantee, to the satisfaction of the Distt. Judge, Sidhi. It appears that a certified copy of the order was delivered to the appellant/ JD on 22.01.1996.

3.4 Consequent thereto, the appellant/JD moved the court of the Distt. Judge, Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh), for permission to deposit the amount, as directed, in the aforementioned order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant, tendered a cheque, in the sum of Rs 44,98,659/- dated 15.03.1996, in favour of the Distt. Judge, Sidhi. The said sum was tendered after the appellant/JD had deducted a sum of Rs 17325/- towards cost, and Rs 45441/-,