An executing court must strictly adhere to the principles of appropriation of payments under the Code of Civil Procedure, ensuring that interest ceases on amounts deposited and that calculations prevent double recovery or unjust enrichment of the decree-holder.

ORDER

(per the Hon’ble Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order passed by learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P.No.92 of 2025 in O.P.No.2219 of 2000 dated 15.11.2025.

2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondent is the decree holder in E.P.No.92 of 2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – JDR submits that the learned Executing Court erred in appreciating the decree holders calculation memo which is incorrect and inequitable, failed to appreciate the fact of stay granted by the High Court and deposit made in pursuance of such order, ought not to have considered the calculation memo filed by the respondent – DHR, ought to have appreciated that legal effect of staying the decree and its operation arrests the interest payable during the subsistence of the judicial stay order. The learned Executing Court has mechanically approved the calculation memo filed by the respondent – DHR without considering the aspect that 1/3rd of the decreetal amount amounting to Rs.39,73,528/- was inclusive of the principal sum of Rs.18,83,190/- and interest amounting to Rs.20,90,338/-, despite the deposit of the principal amount by the petitioner - JDR yet calculation of interest on the same is wholly erroneous and unsustainable. Pursuant to the interim order dated 17.01.2005, a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was deposited, which ought to have been duly adjusted against the principal and interest outstanding as on that date. The learned Executing Court without considering the principles of Order XXI Rule 1 (4) of CPC as per which interest must cease on the amount paid from the date of notice. Respondent - DHR has withdrawn an amount of Rs.59,73,528/- which were deposited in pursuance of the interim orders. Learned Executing Court has allowed the respondent – DHR to earn interest on money he already withdrew leading to double recovery and unjust enrichment of public funds. The learned Executing Court erred and failed to take into consideration the deposit of Rs.1,27,70,351/- made during the pendency of the Execution Petition, which was withdrawn by the respondent - DHR and ought not to have ordered issuance of warrant of attachment for the entire amount as claimed by the respondent - DHR. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India ¹1 (2006) 8 SCC 457 [5 judge bench] (ii) Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. R.S.Avtar Singh and Company ²2 (2013) 1 SCC 243.

4. Counsel for the respondent - DHR submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner – JDR has filed brief note in support of his contention.

6. The genesis of the case is with regard to the agreement dated 22.11.1991 entered between the respondent - DHR and the petitioner - JDR for construction of RTC Kalyanamandapam and Auditorium. Due to the delay, matter was referred to Arbitration vide Arbitration Application No.18 of 1997, an award came to be passed on 28.10.2020 awarding a principal sum of Rs.58,78,562/- in favour of the respondent - DHR. Respondent - DHR and the petitioner - JDR have challenged the award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vide O.P.No.2219 of 2000 [filed by petitioner - JDR] and O.P.No.29 of 2001 [filed by respondent - JDR] before the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and a common order came to be passed by