IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TTHIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1498 OF 2003 Between: Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer, N.S. Canals Circle, Pellore, Ongole (now Irrigation Circle, Ongole) and two others ..... Petitioners AND Dogiparthi Satyanarayana & 3 others .....Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1498 OF 2003 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 07-03-2001 in O.S. No.73 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this revision are as under: Respondent No.1 – plaintiff, who is contractor, filed the suit contending that he entered into an agreement dated 25-03-1987 with defendant No.1 Government of Andhra Pradesh – revision petitioner No.1 for undertaking the work of balance earthwork excavation for remodelling Jawahar Canal from M.97/1 to M.97/2 and during execution of the work, some disputes arose between the parties and the matter was referred for arbitration. The panel of arbitrators passed the award dated 15-04-1996 holding that the contractor – plaintiff is entitled to recover the amounts covered by claim Nos.2(a), 2(b), 5(a) and 5(B) to a tune of Rs.1,36,768-95 paise and interest on claim Nos.5(b) and 2(b) at 12% per annum from the date of final bill till the date of payment and he sought for making the award as Rule of the Court. ii) Defendant No.2 - the Executive Engineer, who is petitioner No.2 herein, has filed written statement in the suit denying the claims of the plaintiff contending that the panel of arbitrators erred in allowing the claims of the plaintiff beyond the agreement conditions and granting interest on claim Nos.5(b) and 2(b) unjustifiably. iii) Defendant Nos.1 and 3, who are revision petitioner Nos.1 and 3, have filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.2. 3. Based on the rival contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to make award as rule of law ? 2. To what relief ? 4. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked the award dated 15-04-1996 passed by the panel of arbitrators as Ex.A-1. On behalf of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. On consideration of the material on record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit making the award as rule of Court, according to which the plaintiff is entitled to have decree as per the award passed by the panel of arbitrators dated 15-04-1996 with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Challenging the same, this revision is filed. 6. The revision petitioners though raised several grounds mainly contended that the interest awarded at 12% per annum during the pendency of the litigation is exorbitant. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision. 8. As seen from paragraph No.7 of the impugned judgment, the revision petitioners reported no evidence on their behalf and as per paragraph No.9, though they raised several contentions, ultimately pressed only one, the one question with regard to interest. 9. In the circumstances, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the revision petitioners are not liable to pay interest at 12% per annum. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd., v. G. Harischandra Reddy & another[1], where the Supreme Court holding that granting interest at 18% per annum is exorbitant and improper, reduced the rate of interest to 9% per annum. 11. In the present case, the interest awarded is at 12% per annum. In view of the decision referred supra and the circumstances of the case on hand, I hold that reducing the interest to 6% per annum from 12% would be appropriate. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part and the rate of interest is reduced to 6% per annum. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J August 13, 2009. PV [1] (2007) 2 SCC 720