THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.C.C.A.No.155 of 1995 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment of the Fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.486 of 1987 dated 13.02.1995. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.77,018.40ps contending that the second defendant, the sole proprietor of first defendant firm approached the bank for sanction of cash credit facility for doing electrical business and the loan was sanctioned. The second defendant executed a promissory note dated 02.12.1982 for Rs.65,000/- agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 17½% per annum with quarterly rests. All the defendants executed relevant documents like continuing guarantee, hypothecation agreement apart from pronotes. Pronotes were renewed on 06.06.1985 and the debt was acknowledged. As the defendants did not pay the amount, plaintiff filed the suit. Defendants filed written statement contending that certain amounts paid by them were not properly accounted for by the plaintiff and no copy of statement of account was furnished. D3 stood relieved, as he did not execute subsequent renewal documents. But the defendants 1 and 2 paid Rs.20,000/- by way of adjustment of FDR of D2, Rs.7,000/- by way of adjustment from the recurring deposit of D1 and D2, Rs.3,000/- from out of daily recurring deposits and Rs.6,000/- remitted by D1 and D2 on 11.10.1986 apart from some other payments. In all, defendants paid Rs.57,400/- towards principal amount leaving a balance of 7,500/- only. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim of Rs.77,018.40ps from the defendants jointly and severally? 2. Whether the promissory note for Rs.65,000/- dated 02.02.1982 and promissory note for Rs.85,405.41ps dated 06.06.1985 are inadmissible in evidence? 3. Whether the guarantee given by defendant No.3 initially stands cancelled and annulled due to the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2? 4. To what relief? 4. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.22,160.40ps with interest at 6% per annum on the balance amount from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 5. The present appeal is filed contending that the court below has not granted interest from the date of suit till the date of judgment at 17% per annum. 6. The defendants though served, did not appear. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 7. As seen from the judgment of the court below, in para 12, the concluding part of the judgment, the suit is decreed with proportionate costs to a tune of Rs.22,160.40ps with interest at 6% per annum from the date of judgment till the date of realisation. No reasons were given for not allowing the interest from the date of suit till the date of judgment. 8. In the circumstances, the plaintiff-appellant would be entitled for interest on Rs.22,160.40ps from the date of suit till the date of judgment also, however at 6% per annum, the rate which is granted by the learned judge from the date of judgment till the date of realisation. 9. Thus, the appeal is allowed holding that the plaintiff-appellant is entitled for interest on Rs.22,160- 40ps from the date of suit till the date of realisation at 6% per annum with proportionate costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th November 2010, Rns