NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) THE only point involved and argued by learned Counsel for the appellant is about pendente lite interest, which has not been awarded by the Trial Court nor any reason has been assigned for not awarding the same.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,563.78 under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein it was pleaded that the defendant -respondents, in order to purchase a Matador Diesel Pick -up Van obtained a term loan upto the limit of Rs. 39,000/ - and executed a demand promissory note on 6.9.1976 in favour of the plaintiff -Bank. The amount was payable with quarterly rests interest. The defendants failed to make full payment of the loan amount with interest, therefore, the present suit was filed. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte as they did not appear in spite of service of summcns. The defendant No. 3 filed an application for leave -to -defend the suit in the Trial Court on 27th February, 1990 but the same was dismissed in default on 31st August, 1990. In these circumstances, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff under Order 37 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for a sum of Rs. 17,563.78 with costs. It is relevant to mention that the defendants did not prefer any appeal, before this Court. The plaintiff preferred the present appeal for decree ofpendente lite and future interest. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff -Bank has informed him vide its letter dated 31st December, 1990, that the defendants have paid the decretal amount therefore, his arguments are confined only in respect of pendente lite interest. He contended that he made the prayer in the plaint about decree of interests also but the impugned judgment and decree . passed by the Trial Court will show that the pendente lite interest has not been awarded and no reason has been assigned for not awarding the same, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is liable to be modified and this Court may award interest for the period from 6.4.1983, the date of filing of the suit, till 8.10.1990, the date of decree. In support of his contentions, he also referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and Ors. : AIR2001SC3095 , and contended that interest is a compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for deprivation of the use of his money and it was a duty of the Trial Court to award interest on the decretal amount.
(3.) SO far as rate of interest is concerned, he contended that agreed rate of interest in the present case was 16 1/2% per annum with quarterly rest, but the plaintiff has claimed only 15% rate of interest in the plaint, therefore, the same may be awarded. However, he does not dispute that agreed rate of interest can be reduced by the Court for the period the suit remained pending in Court and for future period looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case.;