Court deposit does not equal payment under Order XXI Rule 1 unless prescribed notice and tender requirements are met.

A deposit made in an appellate court as a condition for stay does not, by itself, amount to payment to the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 1. Cessation of interest depends on payment in the prescribed manner, and where court deposit is relied on, the rule's notice requirements must also be met. Because the amount remained deposited in the appeal and was neither tendered nor made available to the decree-holder within the stipulated six weeks, the condition for remission of interest was not satisfied. The deposit therefore did not amount to satisfaction of the decree or stop further accrual of interest, and refund on that basis was not available.

---

---

Issues: Whether money deposited in a court other than the executing court, or retained in a disposed of appeal, amounts to payment under Order XXI Rule 1 so as to stop further accrual of interest and entitle the judgment-debtor to refund.

Analysis: The conditional remission of interest in the decree was available only if payment was made within six weeks. A deposit made in the appeal court as a condition for stay did not, by itself, constitute payment to the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 1. Cessation of interest under the rule depends on payment in the manner prescribed and, where deposit in court is relied upon, on the notice requirements contemplated by the rule. Since the amount remained in deposit in FAO(OS) 93/2002 and was not tendered or made available to the decree-holder within the stipulated time, the judgment-debtor did not satisfy the condition for reduced interest. The deposit in the appeal did not amount to satisfaction of the decree or stop the running of interest from the date of deposit.

Conclusion: The claim that the deposited amount constituted payment under the decree was rejected, and the judgment-debtor was not entitled to refund on that basis.

---