ORDER

1. Since pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not only assailing the validity of order dated 17.5.2019 but also claiming that the order dated 6.12.2018 be declared to be bad in law.

3. Shri Lalwani has submitted that the Executing Court by impugned order dated 6.12.2018 had withheld the amount suo motu which has been deposited by the Judgment Debtor in pursuance of the decree dated 11.12.2015. He has submitted that as per the decree dated 11.12.2015, the Judgment Debtor was directed to deposit the amount of rent from 1.8.2007 to 31.3.2010 @ Rs.7302/- per month and from 1.4.2010 till the date of filing of suit i.e. 7.3.2013 @ Rs.14960/- per month and the said amount was directed to be deposited within a period of 60 days for which interest @12% was inflicted upon the said amount of arrears.

4. The dispute in this case is that the amount was not deposited by the Judgment Debtor within the given period of 60 days but it got deposited only on 11.10.2018 including the interest @12% as per the decree dated 11.12.2015.

5. However, Shri Shroti has disputed the said position saying that the amount carries interest only till the date of decree but not thereafter. He has relied upon the provision of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which, it is provided as to in what manner, the interest can be imposed over the arrears of amount and as per Shri Shroti, since no order was passed by the trial Court in this regard and in fact, it does not contain in the decree itself that the interest for remaining period can also be charged from the Judgment Debtor, therefore, even otherwise if payment is not made by the Judgment Debtor within 60 days, then under such circumstances, no interest can be charged from them as per subsection (2) of section 34 of CPC.

6. Petitioner has submitted that the Judgment Debtor had deposited the amount including the interest as awarded by the trial Court @12% till 30.9.2018 and there was no objection ever raised by the Judgment Debtor on the said calculation. However, it was the trial Court, which has raised objection suo motu and not permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said amount which was carrying interest @12% from the date of decree till 30.9.2018. He has submitted that once the amount has been deposited by the Judgment Debtor, the Executing Court becomes functus officio and under such circumstances, the Executing Court had no authority to raise such objection. According to him, at the most, the Executing Court could only permit the Decree Holder to withdraw the amount as per law.

7. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in (2003) 7 SCC 448 (State of Maharashtra and Others v. Maimuma Banu and Others), (2014) 16 SCC 760 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited and Others) and AIR 1992 SC 732 (Secretary to Government of Orissa and Others v. Raghunath Mohapatra).

8. Shri Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the said submission of the petitioner and submitted that the Judgment Debtor had not deposited the amount voluntarily whereas it was deposited in pursuance of the order of trial Court, which reflects from the order-sheet of the Executing Court itself. He has also submitted that within the given time of 60 days, the Judgment Debtor had filed an appeal, in which, stay was granted by the Appellate Court on 25.2.2016 and that stay was continued up to 9.8.2018 and as such, during that period, the Judgment Debtor is not required to pay any interest to the Decree Holder and even otherwise, he has submitted that for withdrawal of the said amount, the Decree Holder was required to deposit the Court fee, which he deposited on 9.10.2018. He has submitted that as per the decree, the amount was payable to the Decree Holder only when the Court f