Short Note : 1. In the present appeal, the grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri R. S Saxena is that no costs should have been awarded to the plaintiff, because he falsely denied in the trial Court that he is a moneylender. The second submission he made before me was that because he has not followed the provisions of the Act under section 7, the plaintiff will not be entitled for interest during the pendency of the suit as ordered by the appellate Court. Held : I think, both the submissions cannot be accepted. As far as costs are concerned, it is the discretion of the appellate Court and I think, the appellate Court has used the discretion judiciously. I find no cause to interfere in the order passed by the appellate Court As far as the second submission is concerned, the interest awarded after filing of the suit is in the discretion of the Court and for awarding the interest, the section applicable is section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The award of interest subsequent to the filing of the suit does not depend on the contractual basis and therefore, there is no question of complying with the provisions of the Act. Section 7 of the Act will not be applicable to the interest pendente lite. Therefore, the second objection also is without any force. Appeal dismissed.