Judgment.- This is an application to revise the order of the Small Causes Court at Madras in N.T.A. No. 92 of 1956. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 999-6-6 representing the balance price of goods sold and delivered to the defendant and also for a sum of Rs. 250-8-6 being the interest at 12 per cent. alleged to have been agreed between the parties. There was no contest in regard to liability for the principal amount. The defendant contested the claim in regard to interest. In support of the petitioner’s case that there was a contract between the parties he relied upon the tradesman’s bill in which the clause charging interest at 12 per cent. per annum was found. It is now fairly well-settled that such a clause in a tradesman’s bill does not by itself constitute a contract between the parties to pay interest at that rate. The trial Judge, therefore, very properly held that no direct contract for the payment of interest has been proved and that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest under section 61 (2) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act and granted him relief by awarding interest at 6 per cent., per annum. This matter was taken up by the defendant before the Full Bench of the Small Causes Court. The learned Judges of the Full Bench referred to section 61 (2) of the Sale or Goods Act and held that it would not apply to a case where there was a contract between the parties; and as in the instant case the plaintiff alleged a contract he was not entitled to a relief in the absence of a finding by Court as to the existence or otherwise of the contract. This I am afraid is ignoring the judgment of the trial Judge. The trial Judge has found that there was no contract to pay interest and with that view he passed a decree for interest at 6 per cent., per annum. The mere fact that the plaintiff alleged a contract which he was not able to prove does not mean that he is disentitled to relief under section 61 (2). The order of the lower Court cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is hereby set aside. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The mere fact that the plaintiff alleged a contract which he was not able to prove does not mean that he is disentitled to relief under section 61 (2). The order of the lower Court cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is hereby set aside. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs in this Civil Revision Petition. P.R.N. ----- Petition allowed.