JUDGMENT - Paunikar G.A. J.-The appellant-original defendant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1982 with respect only to the granting of future interest at 10 p.c.p.a, on the decretal amount of Rs. 37,236.57 from the date of suit till realisation, 2. The respondent-original plaintiff Bank filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 46,276,51 by sale of mortgaged property of (the defendant. It Appeared that the parties filed a joint pursis Exh. 43 showing the outstanding dues against the defendant inclusive of interest till date of suit at Rs. 37,276.51 and submitted that for this amount decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The learned trial Judge passed a decree for this amount against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff and also awarded interest at 10 p.c.p.a. from the date of suit till realisation along with costs of the suit against the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 31-3-1982. The defendant has challenged in this appeal only the rate at which future interest is granted. 3. The learned counsel for the defendant Shri M. G. Bhangde urged that this suit was filed by the plaintiff on 18-2-1976 and was, therefore, governed by the unamended section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amended section 34 is applicable only to suits instituted after 1-7-1977. Hence the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant future interest more than 6 p.c.p.a. from the date of suit till realisation of the decretal amount. There is considerable substance in this contention. 4. The amended section 34 is applicable only to suits instituted after 1-7-1977. Hence the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant future interest more than 6 p.c.p.a. from the date of suit till realisation of the decretal amount. There is considerable substance in this contention. 4. Section 34(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood before Its amendment till 1-7-1977 reads as under: “34 (1): Where and in so far as a decree is for payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six percent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:” Thus the section did not permit the Court to award future interest exceed-ing 6 p.c.p.a. from the date of decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit, as the Court had discretion to grant interest at such rate as it deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of suit to the date of decree. Section 34(1) thus put an upper limit of 6 p.c.p.a. on the rate of interest to be granted as future interest on the principal sum from the date of decree to the date of payment. 5. Section 34(1) thus put an upper limit of 6 p.c.p.a. on the rate of interest to be granted as future interest on the principal sum from the date of decree to the date of payment. 5. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 has been added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 104 of 1976) under section 13, The proviso reads as under: “Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of the commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6 p.c.p.a. but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by Nationalised Banks in relation to commercial transactions.” It would appear that by addition of this proviso, the upper limit of the rate of future interest from the date of the decree to the date of payment is relaxed in respect of commercial transactions and where the decree is on account of commercial transactions, the Court shall grant interest exceeding 6 p.c.p.a. but not exceeding the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by Nationalised Banks in relation to commercial transactions. 6. The suit was filed on 18-2-1976. The decree in the case was passed on 21-3-1982. The proviso to section 34 was brought into force on 1-7-1977. Thus the proviso was not in force on the date of the suit, but it was in force when the decree was passed. The crucial point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether this proviso was applicable to suits which were instituted before it came into force. The proviso to section 34 was brought into force on 1-7-1977. Thus the proviso was not in force on the date of the suit, but it was in force when the decree was passed. The crucial point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether this proviso was applicable to suits which were instituted before it came into force. Section 97(2)(e) of the Amending Act recites as under: “S. 97(1) xx xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx xx (a) xx xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx xx (d) xx xx xx xx (e) The provisions of section 34 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 13 of this Act, shall not affect the rates at which interest may be allowed on the decree in any suit instituted before the commencement of the said section 13 and interest on a decree passed in such suit shall be ordered in accordance with the provisions of section 34 as they stood before the commencement of the said section 13 as if the said section 13 has not come into force.” 7. view of the aforesaid provision, the amended proviso to sec- tion 34(1) was not applicable to this suit as it had been instituted prior to 1-7-1977 i.e. on 18-2-1976. Hence the trial Court had to award interest in accordance with the provisions of section 34 as they stood before the amendment of the said section as the amendment of section 34 did not affect pending suits. 8. If the proviso did not apply to this suit, the trial Court could have no power to award interest exceeding 6 p. c. p. a. from the date of decree to the date of payment of decretal amount as provided for by sub- section (1) of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In the instant case the trial Court has awarded interest at 10 p.c.p.a. from the date of suit till realisation. Section 34(1) of Civil Procedure Code gives discretion to the Court (1) to grant interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of suit to the date of decree. Section 34(1) of Civil Procedure Code gives discretion to the Court (1) to grant interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of suit to the date of decree. Thus there is no upper limit of 6 p.c.p.a. as to rate of interest that can be awarded for this period (2) to grant further or future interest not exceeding 6 p. c. p. a. as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of decree to the date of pay-ment or to such earlier date as the Court deems fit. 10. The trial Court thus could grant interest at the rate of more than 6 p. c. p. a. from the date of suit to the date of decree, but not more than 6 p. c. p. a from the date of decree to the date of payment. But here also discretion is given to the Court to grant interest not exceeding 6 p. c. p. a. even from earlier date earlier to the date of the decree. 11. The trial Court in my opinion obviously overlooked these pro- visions and erred in granting interest at the rate exceeding 6 p.c.p.a. In this case, the parties filed a compromise pursis and prayed for decree in terms of pursis and it Appeared that there was no agreement about future interest to be paid on the decretal amount and matter was left at the dis- cretion of the Court. Though the trial Court could have granted interest at 10 p.c.p.a. from the date of suit till date of decree only, I hold that in view of facts and circumstances of this case awarding of interest at 6 p.c.p.a. from the date of suit till full payment would meet the ends of justice. The order granting interest on the decretal amount at 10 p.c.p.a. is, therefore, set aside and instead future interest at 6 p.c.p.a. on the decretal amount is granted. 12. No other grounds were urged before me in this appeal. 13. In the result this appeal is allowed. The decree of the trial Court is modified and the modified decree will be as under: “The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 37,276.51 and costs of the suit. 12. No other grounds were urged before me in this appeal. 13. In the result this appeal is allowed. The decree of the trial Court is modified and the modified decree will be as under: “The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 37,276.51 and costs of the suit. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 p.c.p.a. from the date of suit till full payment.”. Appeal allowed. ----