JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a defendants application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the II Additional District Judge, Meerut allowing the plaintiff-respondent's revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by which he partly reversed the decree of the Judge Small Cause Court Meerut disallowing the contractual rate of interest on a loan taken by the applicant. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 670/-. He alleged that the applicant had borrowed from the plaintiff's father a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on interest at the rate of Re. 1/- per cent per month and had pawned ornaments as security for the loan; that the plaintiff's father after serving a notice on the applicant sold the ornaments for Rs. 2,852/- which was adjusted against the loan; that the applicant had also paid a sum of Rs. 70/- towards interest on the loan; that a sum of Rs. 148/- was still due as principal and Rs. 522/- as interest. The applicant resisted the suit and raised a number of pleas, including an allegation that he had paid Rs. 370/- towards interest. The trial Judge rejected his pleas and disbelieved his story of repayment of Rs. 370/-. But he disallowed the plaintiff's contractual interest on the ground that he had commuted forgery in his accounts book for the purpose of showing that the loan was re-payable within one year. He decreed the suit for Rs. 148/- only and deprived the plaintiff not only of the interest due under the contract but also any interest pendente lite or future. 2. In revision the Additional District Judge held that the trial Judge was not entitled to deprive the plaintiff of any interest which was due under the contract and increase the decretal amount from Rs. 148/- to 670/-. However, he confirmed the decision of the trial Judge depriving the plaintiff of interest pendente lite or future. The plaintiff respondent appears to have submitted to the decree but the defendant has come here in revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel. The decision of the learned Additional District Judge is sound. The trial Judge had no power to deprive the plaintiff-respondent of what was due to him under the contract. The plaintiff respondent appears to have submitted to the decree but the defendant has come here in revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel. The decision of the learned Additional District Judge is sound. The trial Judge had no power to deprive the plaintiff-respondent of what was due to him under the contract. Its discretion was limited to the matter of costs and interest, pendente lite or future, and he exercised it against the respondent. But he went beyond the limits of this discretion. In a suit for the recovery of a loan due under a contract, the court has no power to deprive a plaintiff of what has been found due to him under a contract on the ground that he has been guilty of tampering with the record, unless such tampering affects the merits of the suit - as for example, tampering with a negotiable instrument. Such power must be conferred by statute - as for example, the Agriculturists Relief Act or the Usurious Loans Act. In this case, the interest was due under the same contract as the principal, and the court had no more power to deprive the respondent of the contractual interest than to dismiss his suit for the recovery of the loan itself. The proper course for the trial Judge was to issue notice to the plaintiff under Sec. 476, Cr. P. C. 4. The application is dismissed with costs.