Hansaria, J. — A suit was filed by respondent No.l for realisation of Rs. 2,40,000 due on account of life insurance policies along with bonus, profit, interest, etc. The case of the plaintiff was that these insurance policies had been assigned to it by the insurer Lalchand Todi. Despite the assignment of the policies, the money had not been paid to the plaintiff which was due to the fact that the appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter the L.I.C. was prevented from paying the same by orders passed by the Income Tax Officer due to some tax outstanding of Shri Todi. After the suit was filed on 12.6.70, a petition was filed by the appellant on 10.9.70, which was before the filing of the written statement, stating that it wants to deposit the money in Court to be paid to the party adjudged to be entitled for the same. His prayer was disallowed on 10.10.70 because of the objection raised by the plaintiff. Though the order dated 10.10.70 stated that appropriate order on the petition shall be filed later on, no such order was passed till the delivery of the judgment. In the judgment as delivered, the appellant was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-along with bonus, profit, interest, etc. It has been further stated in the judgment that the "plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest on the amount decreed from the date of institution of the suit at the rate which was current at that time and fixed by the Reserve Bank of India”.. 2. In the present appeal, the only point urged is relating to that part of the order of the learned trial Court by which interest pendente lite has been made payable by the appellant It has been submitted by Shri Bhattacharjee that the aforesaid interest ought not to have been made payable by the appellant inasmuch as it came forward at the threshhold of the suit to pay all the money which was due on the account of the policies in question. Though the policies were worth Rs. 2,40,000/-, the LIC wanted to pay Rs. 2,92,103/- which included bonus, etc. Though the policies were worth Rs. 2,40,000/-, the LIC wanted to pay Rs. 2,92,103/- which included bonus, etc. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the provision finding place in Order XXIV Rule 1 permits a defendant in any suit filed against him to recover a debt or damages to deposit in Court such sum of money as he consi­ders satisfaction in full of the claim. On such deposit being made, the plaintiff could be given notice, as stated in Rule 2, and no interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on any sum deposited by the defendant from the date of receipt of such notice, whether the sum deposited is in full satisfaction of the claim or falls short there of, as stated in Rule 3. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the appellant was made liable to pay interest principally for the reason that the appellant ought to have taken recourse to the procedure adopted by him within nine months from the date of the maturity of the policy, as provided in section 47 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Shri Bhattacharjee has urged that this section has no application in the present case for two reasons, first, the period of nine months of which mention was made in section 47 of aforesaid Act had been deleted from the section by Act 47 of 1956 vide its section 36, and secondly, section 47 of the Interest Act has application to the working of the Corporation in view of what has been stated in section 43 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. This submission of Shri Bhattacharjee is undoubtedly sound and tenable. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that as the appellant had offered to deposit the entire amount immediately after the insti­tution of the suit, it was not a case of the appellant withholding the money unlawfully or wrongfully from the plaintiff. In this connection, our attention has been invited to the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nathabhai Desaibhai Patel, AIR 1972 SC 1945 in para 4 of which interest subsequent to the date of the institution of the suit was held to be justified where it was found that the appellant had unlawfully withheld the amount due to the respondent even after giving to know that the collection made by the appellant was illegal. Relying on this decision of the Apex Court, it is submitted that though awarding of interest pendente lite is discretionary in view of what has been stated in section 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, interest after the institution of the suit should be made payable in those cases where the money is wrongfully or unlawfully withheld from the suitor. Our attention has also been invited to Karnal Distillery Co. vs. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 509 in which interest was upheld where the prayer to pay agreed sum was not conceded. It is submitted that in the present case the appellant had offered to pay the full money even without any request from the plaintiff. 4. In reply, it is urged by Shri Goswami that on 10.9.70, the appel­lant had not deposited the money, but only offered to do so, and as such it is contended that the appellant may not be exonerated from paying interest to the plaintiff. No doubt, by the application filed on 10.9.70, the appellant had only desired to deposit the amount, we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant would have deposited the amount had no objection been raised, inter alia, by the plaintiff. It is alto stated by Shri Goswami that in case the Court feels inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant, interest may be made payable by the Union of India, defendant No. 2, whose officers had prevented the appellant from paying the money to the plaintiff. What we would like to say in this regard is that interest from the date of the institution of the suit cannot be realised from defendant No. 1 who is the appellant before this Court. If interest has been made payable by defendant No. 2, the same could be realised from it, as this defendant has not filed any appeal against any part of the judgment of the learned trial Court. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Before parting, it may be stated that if the appellant had paid the entire amount of Rs. 2,92,103/-pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 23.2.78, it would stand be discharged from the bond, if executed by it as asked to do by the aforesaid order.