The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of deposits under Order 21 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the entitlement to interest on decretal dues.

B,N. Patnaik, J.

The decree holder in O.S.345/77 on the file of the Addl. Sub Court, Kouayam, has preferred this revision against the order dated 21-7-1993 in E. A. 211/93 in E.P. 383/82 arising out of the said suit. By the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge allowed the petition of the judgment-debtor to get refund of an excess amount of Rs. 28,089.90 which was said to have been deposited in excess of the decretal debt due to the petitioner - decree holder.

2. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 75,645.20 with interest from the date of the suit. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 82,354.15. The decree holder levied execution to execute the decree. vehicle the execution proceeding was pending, the High Court by judgment dated 2-6-1989 in A.S.396/81 modified the decree and allowed the petitioner - decree holder to recover only an amount of Rs. 55,645.20 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit (29-7-1977). The trial court, while granting the decree had directed that the amount of Rs. 18,305.84 deposited by the respondent herein on 2-2-1978 will be credited in the decree as having been paid on 2-2-1978. In pursuance of that order, an amount of Rs. 77,594.01 was claimed in the execution proceeding. In that execution proceeding an order for attachment' of movables belonging to the respondent judgment - debtor was passed. When the Amin went: to effect attachment, the judgement - debtor paid an amount of Rs. 78,445.70 to the Amin who deposited the same in court on 30-11-1982. Thereafter, the High Court allowed the petitioner - decree holder to withdraw the amount on the condition of furnishing security to the satisfaction of the execution court. the petitioner did not draw that amount in view of the conditional order of the appellate court. The appeal was finally disposed or on 2-6-1989.

3. The judgment - debtor respondent filed a petition before the execution court stating that he is entitled to get refund of an amount of Rs. 28,089.90, since the deposits made by him on 2-2-1978 and 30-11-1982 are in excess of the decretal dues. The petitioner decree-holder contended that the decretal amount and interest thereon would be Rs. 1,08,020/- The judgment - debtor has deposited only an amount of Rs. 96,761.54. In the statement filed by the judgment - debtor respondent deduction of the first deposit of Rs. 18,305.84 was made from the total amount due as on 2-2-1978. He stated that he made the deduction from the total amount of the principal, interest, execution expenses and advocate fee as on 2-6-1989.

4. The, execution court held that if the deposit made on 2-2-1978 is deducted from the total amount due on that date, the statement of account filed by the judgment debtor is correct. The total amount due to the decree-holder as on 30-11-1982 on which date the judgment: debtor made the second deposit of Rs. 78,455.70 was completely satisfied and as such there is an excess amount of Rs. 28,089.90. With the above finding, the execution court directed to refund of the amount.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below erred' in restricting the payment of interest from 30-11-1982 when the said amount was deposited. Since the petitioner was not allowed to withdraw the amount unconditionally, it was not deposited in terms of Order 21, rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, the C.P.C. Hence the decree -holder is entitled to get interest on the decretal dues less the amount paid on 2-2-1978 upto the date of judgment in A.S.396/81.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner was at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited on 30-11-1982 on that day, as it was deemed to have been done under Order 21, rule 1(a) of the C.P.C. He is not entitled to claim interest on the decretal dues from 30-11-1982. Hence it its contended that the execution court is justified in accepting the statement of account filed by the respondent