THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.1741 OF 1993 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1991 in O.S.No.296 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.1,13,939-86 ps. with the interest and also part of the principal due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was given an order for supply and erection of false ceiling system by the defendant and from time to time the plaintiff has done the work and the total value of the work done by the plaintiff was Rs.2,19,378-34 ps. and against that only a sum of Rs.2,04,400/- was paid and there was a delay in payments of the money and in spite of repeated demands and a legal notice the amount was not paid and, therefore, for the payments made earlier and for the amount due to a tune of Rs.17,912-75 ps., the suit was filed. The defendant has filed a written statement admitting the supply order and also the factum of payment of part of the money and the amount of Rs.17,912-75 ps. being due. But, however, it is the contention of the defendant that there were no delays and if there are any delays, it is only because of administrative delays. Furthermore, there is no stipulation to pay interest and consequently no interest is payable and the claim for interest at 18% per annum is also tenable. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount and is liable to pay only Rs.17,912-75 ps. as contended in the written statement? 2. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A- 7 and on behalf of the defendant, no witness was examined but, however, Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs.17,912-75 ps. with proportionate costs and with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 30.07.1991, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the total suit amount? 2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? POINTS: Evidently, the claim of the plaintiff is based partly on the component of interest and also a sum of Rs.17,912-75 ps. being amount due. It is not in dispute that the total value of the work done by the plaintiff is Rs.2,19,378-34 ps. and payment of total amount was Rs.2,04,400/-. As can be seen from the material on record, the bills were submitted on 10.09.1982, 28.11.1982, 05.09.1983 and also the final bill was submitted on 15.09.1983. The payments were made to the plaintiff on 01.12.1982, 09.05.1983 and by the date of final bill only a sum of Rs.79,400/- was paid. Admittedly, the plaintiff made some representations and legal notice was given on 13.10.1984 and made a payment of Rs.25,000/-, which was due by then. After this payment, the total amount paid was Rs.2,04,400/-. But, subsequently, a legal notice is also said to have been issued on 11.03.1984 for the extra work done for item No.2, for which there is, evidently, no proof. It is to be mentioned that till the issue of the notice on 20.11.1984, whenever payments were made, the plaintiff did not object for the delayed payments and did not claim any interest. Therefore, the claim for the payment of interest was only after the letter dated 20.11.1984 and also the legal notice dated 28.02.1985. Therefore, by the date of the legal notice dated 28.02.1985, a sum of Rs.17,912-75 ps. is only due after deducting the payment of Rs.25,000/- received earlier. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if there is no agreement to pay interest, the plaintiff will be entitled to get this amount after the issue of the legal notice and also because of the fact that till the filing of the suit in 1987 the amount was unpaid. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances and keeping in view the provisions of the Interest Act and also withholding of the money of the plaintiff after completion of the work, which was entrusted to him. The contention of the appellant, the interest from the date of notice i.e. 28.02.1985 is legal and tenable. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the plaintiff is found entitled to a sum of Rs.17,912-75 ps. with interest at 12% per annum from 28.02.1985 instead of the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of decree till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 18-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.1741 OF 1993 Date: 18-10-2011 MR