ORDER : The plaintiff-applicant sued the non-applicant for the recovery of Rs. 300 and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 408 alleging that the defendant used to purchase goods on credit from the plaintiffs shop, that on 27th June 1951 on account of the credit-transaction was taken and the defendant executed a document in favour of the plaintiff admitting his liability to pay Rs. 300 in respect of the price of the goods sold on credit and agreeing to repay the amount within one year and further agreeing to pay interest at the rate of Re. 0-12-0 per month per cent, in the case of default. The defendant did not appear and the case proceeded ex parte against him. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes decreed the plaintiffs claim to the extent of Rs. 381 only. He decreed the plaintiffs claim for interest only from the date of default and not from the date of the execution of the document i.e. 27th June 1951. 2. In this revision petition the plaintiff claims that under the terms of the document he is entitled to get interest at the stipulated rate from the date on which the document was executed. In my opinion the lower Court was right in rejecting the plaintiffs claim for interest for one year from the date of the document. The material provision of the document runs as follows : It seems to me that according to the above provision interest is to run on the amount of Rs. 300 on default and from the date of default. There is nothing in the document to show that the defendant agreed to pay interest from the date of the execution of the document in the event of his making a default in the payment of the amount of Rs. 300 within one year. Mr. Manik Chand Jain learned counsel for the applicant argued that the condition of payment of interest in the case of default of payment of Rs. 300 within the agreed period should be construed as meaning that interest was payable from the date of the document. Learned counsel was unable to refer me to any authority to support the construction. The condition as regards the payment of interest in the case of default must be so construed that it does not amount to a penalty within the meaning of S. 74, Contract Act. Learned counsel was unable to refer me to any authority to support the construction. The condition as regards the payment of interest in the case of default must be so construed that it does not amount to a penalty within the meaning of S. 74, Contract Act. There is now overwhelming authority in favour of the view that where a bond stipulates that the loan will carry no interest for a period but in default of payment during that period interest is to be charged from the date of default, then, if interest is to be charged from the date of the bond whatever the rate may be the stipulation is in the nature of penalty (See Mahmmad Raja Mia v. Naderrajjama Mia, AIR 1932 Cal 53 (A)). Where interest is to be charged from the date of default, the stipulation is not in the nature of penalty. Consistent with the provisions of S. 74, Contract Act, the condition in the document executed on 27th June 1951 as regards payment of interest in case of default cannot therefore be construed as one for the payment of interest from the date of the bond, and the applicant cannot claim to recover interest from the date of the bond. 3. The other point taken on behalf of the applicant is that an amount of Rs. 20-10-0 paid by the plaintiff-applicant as penalty and duty on the document dated 27th June 1951 treated as a bond should have been ordered to be recovered as costs from the defendant to the plaintiff. The point was not taken in the lower Court. But I think having regard to the provisions of Ss. 43 (3) and 28 of the Indore Stamp Act as adapted in Madhya Bharat, there is no reason for disallowing the recovery of the amount of duty and penalty as costs from the defendant. Under S. 28 of the Indore Stamp Act the duty on bond was payable by the defendant. Under S. 43 (3) of the Indore Stamp Act the amount of duty and penalty paid by the plaintiff can be ordered to be recovered as costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear in the lower Court or here to show cause against the recovery in these circumstances. Under S. 43 (3) of the Indore Stamp Act the amount of duty and penalty paid by the plaintiff can be ordered to be recovered as costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear in the lower Court or here to show cause against the recovery in these circumstances. I see no ground whatsoever for refusing the recovery of the amount of duty and penalty from the defendant as costs payable by him to the plaintiff. 4. The result is that this revision petition is accepted in part and the decree of the Court of Small Causes, Lashkar, is modified by directing that in addition to the costs of the suit, the plaintiff-applicant shall also be entitled to recover Rs. 20-10-0 being the amount of duty and penalty paid by him in respect of the document dated 27th June 1951 as costs from the defendant-non-applicant. The applicant shall get costs of this petition from the non-applicant.