IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 AS.No. 400 of 1998() -------------------- OS.747/1996 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------- THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, THRISSUR HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT THRISSUR VILLAGE AND THRISSUR TALUK WITH BRANCHES AT VARIOUS PLACES INCLUDING VALANJAMBALAM AT COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SULOCHANA RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 44, W/O. K.V. RAJAN, SOLE PROPRIETRIX, M/S. PERFECT GARMENTS, 44/2500, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR. 2. K.V. RAJAN, AGED 48, S/O. VELU, KUNNATHULI HOUS, SOLE PROPRIETOR, M/S. 'GENTLEMAN', 44/2500, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.S. No. 400 of 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of August , 2011. JUDGMENT The plaintiff has come up in appeal. 2. The suit was one for money. The defendant remained ex-parte. A decree was passed enabling the plaintiff Bank to realize an amount of Rs.3,71,235.70 with interest at 14% per annum from the date of suit till decree and thereafter at the rate 6% per annum till realization from the defendants and the assets with costs. 3. In this appeal the Bank takes objection to the award of future interest at 6% by the court below. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the lower court has not adverted to the proviso to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor has it given any reasons for limiting the future interest at 6%. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this court the decision reported in Punjab & Sind Bank v. Allied A.S.400/1998. 2 Beverage Co. (P) Ltd. ((2010) 10 SCC 640) in which it has been held that in such cases a workable solution should be evolved and the rate of interest granted shall not be far too less. Learned counsel also relied on the decision reported in Syndicate Bank, Chennai v. Mohan Brothers((2004) 10 SCC 549) wherein the decision reported in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra ((2002) 1 SCC 367) has been doubted and the matter was referred to a larger Bench. It is contended that the trial court was not justified in limiting the future interest at 6% and at least 9% interest ought to have been granted on the amount decreed. 5. Though the argument may look attractive, on a close scrutiny it can be found that there is no merit in the contention at all. Section 34, which is applicable in the facts of the case enables the court to limit the interest. The proviso is only an enabling provision and it is not necessary that interest should be awarded at the contractual rate or commercial rate in all cases. The court below has in its wisdom exercised the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the A.S.400/1998. 3 Code of Civil Procedure to grant interest at 6%. It is true that no reasons are given for limiting the interest at 6%. But it is discernible from the judgment that the court has exercised its discretion and has come to the conclusion that future interest is to be awarded only at 6%. The trial court felt that that was a workable solution. It is felt that there is no justification for interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial court. It is obvious that the findings of the trial court are based on the facts and circumstances of the case and being the court of the first instance, unless the discretion exercised is found to be perverse or unwarranted, interference at the appellate stage is not called for. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is felt that there is no merit in this appeal. Hence this appeal is dismissed in limine. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.