Judgment :- C.R.P.No.1035 of 1989: The defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision The petitioner has filed this civil revision petition against the judgment and decree O.S.No.354 of 1987, dated 26.12.1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, challenging the decree for a sum of Rs.1,260.90 with interest. The respondent which plaintiff is the partnership firm with the name and style of M/s.Sundaraval represented by its partner. Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased paper from the respondent for a sum of Rs.4,174 respondent claimed interest at 24% per annum as per the agreement between the respondent received the cost of the paper. But he has filed the suit for the recovery interest with interest at 24% per annum on the suit amount. There is no dispute with to the Principal amount in this suit. But the defendant disputed payment of interest at per annum on the suit claim which itself is arrears of interest. 2. C.R.P.No.1036 of 1989: The defendant is the petitioner. The respondent filed a O.S.No.385 Of 198ft, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Sattur, for recovery sum of Rs.820-30. Admittedly the petitioner had purchased paper from the respondent the suit itself is laid for recovery of arrears of interest with interest at 24% per annum dispute in this case is that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest on interest. 3. C.R.P.No.187 of 1991: The defendant is the petitioner in this petition. He filed this revision petition against the judgment made in O.S.No.386 of 1987, dated 31.10.1980 the file of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Sattur. The suit is for recovery of a Rs.1,100 being arrears of interest with interest at 24% per annum. The dispute in this is that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest on interest. 4. The trial Court found from the evidence oral and documentary in all the above three that the defendant is liable to pay interest on this suit claim. The trial Court found from exhibits filed by the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant agreed to pay interest as per printed writings in the bills for the purchases and therefore, as a question of fact, the court found that the petitioner has agreed to pay the interest. 5. The trial Court found from exhibits filed by the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant agreed to pay interest as per printed writings in the bills for the purchases and therefore, as a question of fact, the court found that the petitioner has agreed to pay the interest. 5. The petitioner in all these three civil revision petitions has raised a common question he is not liable to pay interest on the suit claim which itself represents interest principal amount for which paper was purchased on credit basis by the petitioner. Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the respondent for recovery of interest, on the principal sum which itself represents interest is contrary provisions of Sec.3(3)(c) of the Interest Act, 1978. Sec.3(3)(c), Interests Act reads follows: “ (3) Nothing in this section: (a) shall apply in relation to: (i) any debt or damages upon which interest is payable as of right, by virtue agreement; or (ii) any debt or damages upon which payment of interest is barred, by virtue of an express agreement; (b) shall affect - (i) the compensation recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of exchange promissory note cheque, as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, or (ii) the provisions of Rule 2 or O.2 of the Fifth Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (c) shall empower the court to award interest upon interest. ” Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.Subbiah contended that the trial Court has awarded interest erroneously under Sec.34, C.P.C., contrary to provisions of Sec.3(3)(c) of Interest Act Sec.34(1), C.P.C., reads as follows: “ 34(1): Where and in so far as a decree is for payment of money, the court may, in 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 per cent 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. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect of the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment of other earlier date, Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit, therefor shall lie. Provided that there the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent annum, 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 commercial transactions.” 6. Leaned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied upon the judgment reported in Sigappiachi v. Palaniappa, A.I.R 1972 Mad. 463 In the abovesaid case, the Division Bench of this Court held that an account suit is treated money suit under O.7, Rule 2, C.P.C., and therefore, the provisions relating to money will apply to a suit for taking of accounts. The provisions of Sec.34, C.P.C. would applicable in awarding interest in an account suit. The Division Bench further held principal amount that is found payable by the defendant on the date of suit and the Bench directed that the Principal sum adjudged would carry further interest at six per annum simple, from the date of the decree till the date of payment another judgment was cited by the Learned counsel for the respondent reported in Venkanna Chettiar and v. Shaik Muhammad Rowther, (1943)2 M.L.J. 504 , following the judgment reported Venkataramayya v. Mallikarjunudu, (1942)1 M.L.J. 571 , wherein the learned Judge Court was observed as follows: “Where although there was no stipulation in advance to pay compound interest periodical rests yet by subsequent agreement between the parties at each settlement account there was a sinking of the interest in arrear in the principal debt and the composite sum carried interest till the next settlement, the debtors having lost their right to have unpaid interest separated from the principal and dealt with independently all the features of compound interest are present.” Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the decision reported in Indian Kamalalaya Cloth Store, A.I.R 1991 Ori. 44, wherein the learned single judge of Orissa Court held that for commercial loan advanced by Bank, the loanee has to pay interest the date of loan till date of payment in full with quarterly rest and the interest accrued added to principal amount on the date of suit is the principal amount for purposes of and not amount of loan originally advanced. The last decision relied on by the counsel for the respondent is the decision reported in Syndicate Bank v. M/s.W.B.Cements Ltd., A.I.R. 1939 Del 107. In this case also, learned single Judge of Delhi High Court that the Bank commuting interest at quarterly rests and after every quarter adding to last balance and treating that as principal sum for next quarter for computing interest the principal amount would be the sum so arrived at and so the principal sum advanced would be the sum total of original advance and unpaid interest and under Sec.34, interest can be awarded on the principal sum so arrived at. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decisions reported in Indian case, A.I.R. Ori 44 and Syndicate Bank case, A.I.R. 1989 Del 107, do not apply to the of this case, as according to him, the petitioner herein had not agreed to pay interest quarterly rests if the principal amount was not paid and so according to him, two decisions were rendered in cases where banks had lent loans whereas in the instant cases, transactions are in respect of purchase of paper made by the petitioner from the respondent during their long transactions. 8. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in Sigappiachi Palaniappa, A.I.R. 1972 Mad. 463, is not applicable to the fads of this case. The rendered in the said judgment was in respect of a suit for money arising out of accounts the Division Bench found that the provisions of Sec.34, I.P.C. would be applicable awarding interest on accounts suit. The case on hand is not a suit on accounts. But, suit for recovery of money being accrued interest under the Sale of Goods Act for goods sold and delivered. According to the petitioner, he has paid the entire amount. The other two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Syndicate Bank case, A.I.R. 1989 Del 107, referred to above are also not applicable facts of the present case. According to the petitioner, he has paid the entire amount. The other two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Syndicate Bank case, A.I.R. 1989 Del 107, referred to above are also not applicable facts of the present case. These two decisions were rendered in cases where money was to the Bank in which the Bank computed interest with quarterly rests and at every adding the interest to the lost balance and treating that as principal sum for next quarter computing referred to above is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. said decision it is observed where although there was no stipulation in advance compound interest with periodical rests, yet by subsequent agreement between the at each settlement of account, there was a sinking of the interest in the arrears Principal debt and the composite sum carried interest till the next settlement, the having lost their right to have the unpaid interest separated from the principal and dealt with independently, all the essential features compound interest are present. Here, it is not the case of the respondent that the has agreed to pay compound interest with periodical rests. I have already extracted provisions of Sec3(3)(c) of the Interest Act (Central Act 14 of 1978). Sec.3(3)(c) reiterates that nothing in the section shall empower the court to award interest upon interest. 9. Therefore, when there is no contract to pay interest on interest as found by me case, the respondent is not entitled to pay interest on interest prior to the filing of the But even as per Sec.34, C.P.C. the respondent is not entitled to interest subsequent date of decree till the date of realisation. Subject to the above modification the civil petitions are allowed partly. No costs. Petition allowed in part.