ORDER Bennet, J.
1. This is a Civil Revision by a judgment-debtor Ramman Lal against an order passed under Section 30(2) and other sections of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1934. The applicant in revision applied to the Court which passed the decree to reduce the decree. The decree was one passed on a simple mortgage and the amount of the mortgage bond was Rs. 7,000; the date of the mortgage was 20th August 1924; the suit was brought on 15th August 1932; the preliminary decree was dated 30th July 1934, and the period expired on 30th January 1935, and the final decree for sale was passed on 20th February 1935. The first point which is taken is against the finding (b) of the lower Court that interest was allowed at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with yearly rests on the total amount due on 31st December 1929 till the date of the suit, 15th August 1932. The objection taken is that the Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction given to it by Section 30(1) and (2). Under these sub-sections it is provided that the interest on the loan should not exceed the rate higher than the schedule. The section refers to the interest on the loan whereas the Court; below has granted interest on the total amount due on 31st December 1929. I am of opinion for the reasons already given in the connected revision No. 12 of 1936 that the interest should not be on the accumulated amount due but only on the loan, that is on the principal of the loan which was Rs. 7,000. Accordingly I allow the revision on this point and direct that instead of the interest at 6 per cent per annum with yearly rests on the total amount due on 31st December 1929 up till the date of suit, 15th August 1932, the amount shall be reduced to the interest at that rate on Rs. 7,000 only.
2. The next point which is argued is point (c) by which the Court below granted interest at the rate of 12 annas per cent per mensem simple interest, that is 9 per cent per annum simple interest, from the date of suit, 15th August 1932, till the period of grace, 30th January 1935, on the principal sum of Rs. 7,000. The objection taken is that this is not in accordance with the Schedule for Section 30. The Court below has granted simple interest and the amount is a secured loan which is in Schedule 3, under heading (c) between Rs. 5,001 and Rs. 20,000. The schedule provides that the interest should be X plus 3. Now the special note (a) provides that from the period from 1st January 1930 the rate should be 4l per cent. We have therefore to add 4 1/2 per cent to 3 per cent, and the total is 7 1\2 per cent. The Court below therefore was wrong in awarding 9 per cent, and accordingly I allow the revision on this point and direct that the rate of interest for this period should be reduced from 9 per cent simple interest to 71 per cent simple interest.
3. The remaining point argued was in regard to the order (d). This provided 6 per cent per annum simple interest on the principal amount Rs. 7,000 from 30th January 1935 till 7th May 1935. Now learned Counsel for the applicant relies on Section 4, which provides that future interest should be at the rate provided in the Government Notification in the Gazette. The Government notification is published in the U.P. Gazette of 4th May 1935, Part 8, p. 200, and it provides that the rate of 3 1/2 should come into force from 8th May 1935. But learned Counsel has not shown that there is any less rate than 6 per cent applying to the period before 8th May 1935, which is the period with which we are concerned. The rate of 3 1/2 per cent does not apply to this period and therefore this part of the revision cannot be allowed. As the revision has partly succeeded and partly failed I direct that the parties should pay their own costs.