The rate of interest to be awarded at the time of restitution is within the discretion of the executing Court, but it should be exercised on sound judicial principles.

LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. dated 5th November 1966 and involves the determination of a question relating to award of interest while directing restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure code

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal-may be stated within a narrow compass.

( 3 ) THE appellant. Amalgamated Elec-tricity Company Limited, obtained a money decree from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer for Rs. 44,461/11/9 against the respondent. the Municipal Council Ajmer on 19-9-1956. The appellant was also awarded costs of original suit Rs. 1997 and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 3 1/2% P. A. The appellant thereafter levied execution hut the respondent filed an appeal before this court and obtained ex parte stay of execution on 15-21967. Later on, after hearing both the parties the ex parts stay order dated 15-21967 was set aside by a subsequent order dated 19-3-1967 of this Court and it was directed that the decretal amount shall not be paid to the decree-holder i. e. the appellant in this case, unless security is furnished to the satisfaction of the executing Court for repayment in case the decree passed by the trial court is set aside. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 19-3-19 (sic) the judgmentdebtor-respondent deposited the decretal amount in the executing court on 20-31957. The appellant furnished bank guarantee for restitution of the amount and thereafter withdrew it on 24-11-59. Subsequent. lv the decree passed in favour of the appellant was however set aside by this Court on 22-9-1964 and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed with costs Consequently on 7th May, 1965 the respondent-judgment-debtor applied for restitution of the amount which it had paid te the appellant in execution of the decree passed by the trial court. The appellant deposited the amount in the Court on 17th December. 65 which was withdrawn by the respondent on 5-11-1966. Two questions cropped up in connection with the restitution proceedings: (1) What rate of interest should be allowed to the respondent on the decretal amount refunded to it? (2) For what period the respondent is entitled to get such interest on the money restituted 3-A. None of the parties led any evidence on either of these points and the executing Court held that the respondent-judgment-debtor is entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the sum of Rs 55. 501/9/9 from 24-111959 i. e. the date when the amount was actually withdrawn by the appellant upto 17th December, 1965 when the amount was redeposited by the appellant by way of restitution.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED bv this order of the executing Court the appellant has filed this appeal and the only ground urged by it is that the rate of interest awarded is excessive. The respondent has also filed cross-objection and the ground urged by the respondent in support of its cross-objection is that it should have been allowed interest for the period commencing from 23-8-57 when the amount was actually deposited by it in the Court in execution of the decree upto 5th Novem-ber, 1966 when the amount was actually withdrawn by the respondent from the Court in the course of restitution proceedings.

( 5 ) WE shall first take up the appeal Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had invested money after withdrawing it from the court in a bank and earned interest at the rate of 3 1/2% p. a. only upto 21-51961 and at 4% per annum from 22-5-61 upto 23-9-1965 and in these circumstances the respondent should not have been allowed interest at more than 4% per annum. It has also been submitted that while passing the decree in favour of the appellant the trial court had awarded pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 3 1/2% P. A. only and the same rate should havt been allowed at the time of restitution of the amount on the reversal of the decree of the trial Court. On the other hand the l