1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR First Appeal No. 573 of 2011 Smt. Kalavatidevi Ghansham Bajaj ...Versus... Parasmal s/o Pratapchand Baid Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Rohit Joshi Advocate for appellant. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 28.07.2011. Heard. This appeal is restricted to the challenge in the matter of grant of rate of interest, since appellant is aggrieved with the rate of interest awarded @ 6% per annum rather than 18% per annum. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that though there was no specific agreement in the matter of agreed rate of interest, fact remains that the Income Tax documents and T.D.S. by the respondent and the amounts paid by cheque indicated that respondent had agreed to pay interest at 18% per annum. He thus submits that this is the documentary evidence from which inference can be drawn about rate of interest at 18% per annum. Therefore the trial 2 Court committed error in not awarding interest at 18% per annum. He invited my attention to the cross-examination of respondent wherein he agreed that he had signed ex.32 which was Form 16-A under Income Tax Act and, therefore, he buttressed the point on the basis of said evidence and the cross-examination. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having seen the impugned judgment, the points that arise for my determination are : (i) Whether the trial court committed error in awarding 6% interest per annum in place of 18% as claimed? (ii) Whether there was agreement of rate of interest at 18% per annum? Perusal of the judgment of the trial court would show that the trial Court decreed the suit for entire principal amount and in addition granted interest at 6% per annum. There is no dispute that Ex.32 and the evidence produced on record show deduction of certain amounts towards the tax so also the calculations made by the respondent in the matter of amounts payable. But there is denial about the rate of interest that was agreed between the parties by the respondent. After all, agreement is conscience act of the parties and therefore it cannot be assumed in the absence of specific agreement about rate of 3 interest awarded by the trial Court at 6% per annum is under the power of Civil Courts under Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, when the appellant did not bring out any specific agreement as to the rate of interest showing respondent had agreed to pay interest at 6% per annum, it would be improper to disturb the said finding of fact which has been arrived at by the trial court in the fact situation upon consideration of material evidence. The trial Court has also applied its mind to the fact that Ex.32 Form 16-A was issued, but that by itself cannot be the evidence about agreement of interest. Merely because other view could be possible, I do not think it to be a fit case to interfere only on this question, regarding interest. The points are answered in negative. Hence, F.A. No. 573/11 is dismissed. No costs. Judge /TA/