KHAN ( 1 ) RESPONDENT Society took a loan from appellant-bank. The society allegedly defaulted giving rise to a dispute referred to Arbitration by Registrar who passed award of Rs. 19,04,323. 97 against the Society of which Rs. 15. 00 lakhs and odd was for principal amount and rs. 2. 71 lakhs or so as interest. Pursuant thereto parties executed an agreement dated 30/8/1987 whereby respondent society was required to liquidate the debt in instalments of Rs. 20,000. 00 per month to be adjusted towards principal amount and Rs. 10,000. 00 per month towards interest. This arrangement worked for some time and after paying forty instalments (Rs. 8. 00 lakhs for principal amount and Rs. 14. 00 lakhs towards interest. Society allegedly defaulted again. Appellant retaliated by appropriating the payment made towards principal amount and adjusted it towards interest. It also took action for attachment and auctioning of society s property and for issuance of arrest warrants against its officials. ( 2 ) THE Society filed C. w. P. no. 2440/1992 to challenge this on the plea that appellants action was violative of provisions of Sections 59 and 60 of the contract Act. It was contended by the society that once a debtor deposited the amount in a particular head, the creditor could not subsequently appropriate it to a different head. It was also submitted that under amended order 21 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, money received in execution of decree was first to be adjusted towards principal amount. ( 3 ) THE writ court found that appellant had first shown the payment received in principal amount and then had altered it tp adjust towards? interest which contravened provisions of Sections 59 and 60 of the Contract Act. The court concluded that where a debtor had intimated that payment was to be credited towards a particular debt, the creditor having accepted it could not later appropriate it towards the other debt. It accordingly held as under;- "i quash the letters dated 2/7/1992 and 9/7/1992 passed by respondent no. 2. In view of the fact that petitioner has deposited a total amount of Rs. 32,46,480. 49 paise, I direct the respondents to adjust the payment, which was made by the petitioner before issuance of the letter dated 2/7/1992 under the head principal amount as deposited by the petitioner. 2. In view of the fact that petitioner has deposited a total amount of Rs. 32,46,480. 49 paise, I direct the respondents to adjust the payment, which was made by the petitioner before issuance of the letter dated 2/7/1992 under the head principal amount as deposited by the petitioner. The obrespondents will calculate as to any other amount is still outstanding and due after taking into consideration the total payment made by the petitioner as on 2/7/1992. The payment received pursuant to the order of this Court will be taken to liquidate the principal amount and then towards adjustment of interest amount. The respondent shall communicate the said outstanding amount, if any, to the petitioner within one month from the date of this order and if any amount is due, the petitioner shall make the payment of the said amount within a period of one month thereafter from the said communication. " ( 4 ) WE do not find much substance and sense in the controversy which was raging for years. Appellant Bank had admittedly received more than the awarded amount and writ court had left it free to come out with any other outstanding which was made payable by the Society within a time frame. It is not understandable what loss or prejudice was caused to its interests. It seems to us that appellant had engaged itself in a useless and futile litigation for years on the specious plea that writ court had no jurisdiction to direct an adjustment in the bank records. It may be technically correct but it cannot be wished away that the court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction could mould the relief and pass appropriate orders to subserve interests of justice. And that is what it had done in the present case. ( 5 ) WE find ourselves in complete accord with the approach adopted and view taken by the writ court in the matter. The impugned order is accordingly affirmed and the appeal dismissed.