This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. 181 of 2011 whereby the lower appellate court passed a decree which reads as follows:
“That the appeal stands allowed. The verdict of the Court below under challenge is reversed and set aside. The suit is thus decreed allowing the appellant/plaintiff to realise a sum of Rs.1,17,187/- (Rupees one lakh seventeen thousand one hundred and eighty seven only) with further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization with costs from the defendants and their assets.”
2. Fortunately for this Court, the facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff in the suit bid for a work offered by the defendants in the suit and completed the work and submitted a final bill on 30.9.2004. Inspite of several requests and demands made, the amount was not paid and ultimately the amount was paid without interest on 25.10.2005. The plaintiff laid the suit for interest for the delayed payment.
3. The State resisted the claim mainly on the basis that there was no clause in the agreement to pay interest on delayed payment and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest.
4. The trial court raised necessary issues and parties went to trial. The evidence consists of the documents produced as Exts.A1 to A3 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants examined D.W.1 and had Exts. B1 and B1(a) marked. The trial court took the view that since the entire amount has been paid and the plaintiff has received it without objection, the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit claiming interest. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The aggrieved plaintiff carried the matter in appeal and the appellate court mainly relying on Interest Act and taking the view that for delayed payment interest is due to the plaintiff, decreed the suit as already mentioned.
5. In the second appeal the following substantial question of law arises for consideration:
“1. Whether the appellants are entitled to pay interest on delayed payment when the agreement between the parties did not contain the specific clause with respect to that aspect.”
6. After having heard learned Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for the respondent, the view taken by the court below that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on delayed payment does not call for any interference. Though it was contended that final payment was received without objection, the facts as could be discerned from Ext.A2 shows that even prior to the receipt of final payment, it has been specifically pointed out by the plaintiff that he is entitled to interest. He has also mentioned in Ext.A2 the reasons for which is he is constrained to receive the amount. Further, the appellant is supported by the decision reported in P.Radhakrishna Murthy v. National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited ((2013) 3 SCC 747).
7. Faced with the above situation, learned Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to Ext.A2 and pointed out that the demand for interest is confined to Rs.78,125/-. It is not discernible, according to the learned Government Pleader, as to how the court below granted a decree for Rs.1,17,187/-.
8. There seems to be considerable force in the above submission. The demand for interest as per Ext.A2 is Rs.78,125/- which alone the plaintiff is entitled to.
For the above reasons, this appeal is partly allowed and a modified decree is passed as follows:
(i) The plaintiff is entitled to realise a sum of Rs.78,125/- with 6% interest from the date of suit till the date of realization with costs throughout.
sb.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE