[1] IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.108 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO.3201 OF 1996 M/s. Kadri Shipping Agency and ors. ... Appellants. Versus M/s. Gulf Exports ... Respondents. Mr. Mr. Pinkey Sutar with Pritesh Patni i/b. Khaitan and Jaykar for the appellants. None for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : January 19, 2009. : January 19, 2009. : January 19, 2009. P.C. 1. By this appeal, the appellant, who is the original Plaintiff challenges the Judgment and Decree, dated 17th October, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No. 3201 of 1996. The challenge is restricted to the amount mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the impugned order. 2. None appears for the defendant-respondent, though served. The submission of the learned Counsel is that in absence of the written statement filed by [2] the defendants in the Suit, the learned Single Judge should have passed the Decree in terms of prayer clause (a). The amount mentioned in paragraph 3 of the impugned order is shown as Rs. 32500/- whereas the Decree was claimed for the amount of Rs. 1,91,011.81 Ps. and the interest @ 24% was claimed on the principal amount. 3. We have perused the record. In our opinion the following order would meet the ends of justice:- (1) Paragraph No. 3 of the order, dated 13th October, 2003 passed in Suit No. 3102 of 1996 be deleted and the following be substituted:- "In the circumstances of the Suit a decree in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) of the plaint, save and except that the interest shall be @ 12% per annum instead of 24% per annum, claimed in the prayer clause (a)" 4. The Appeal is disposed of. [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]