JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—This judgment will dispose of two Civil Suits—Civil Suit No, 15 of 1982 and Civil Suit No. 16 of 1992, filed by the State of H. P. against M/s United Himachal Motors and four others, for the recovery of Rs. 1,84,8(0 and Rs. 2,78,547-57 respectively, due to the non-supply of the vehicles by the defendants to it as the common question of law and facts arise in both the suits. Moreover, both these suits were consolidated vide order dated 25th June, 1986 passed by this Court in Civil Suit No 16 of 1982 and consequently, the evidence was recorded in this suit thereafter. 2. Defendant No. 1 M/s. United Himachal Motors and Industries Ltd. of which defendants No 2 and 3 are the partners, was the agent and authorised dealer of M/s. Mahindera and Mahindera Ltd., defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 5 was the Manager of defendant No Ts firm at the relevant time. 3. The relevant facts are these; that during the year 1978-79, after observing the code formalities regarding the seeking of approval from the Government for the purchase of vehicles, the Directorate of Horticulture placed orders with defendant No. 1, the authorised dealer of defendant No. 4, having its Branch office at Mandi for the supply of three pick-up vans and three jeeps of Mahindera and Mahihdera Make. The plaintiff after obtaining the quotations and as per the terms and conditions of defendants No 1 and 4 paid hundred per cent of the costs of the vehicles to the firm through bank-drafts No. 313915 and 313861 respectively in the sum of Rs 1,80,873,0" and Rs. 1,20,000 respectively in the name of defendant No, 1- The said drafts were encashed by defendant No. 1, Civil Suit No. 15 of 1982 pertains to the recovery of the principal amount as also interest thereupon with respect to the supply of three jeeps whereas Civil Suit No. 16 of 1982 pertains to the recovery of the principal amount and interest with respect to the supply of three diesel pick-up vans. 4. The plaintiff asserts that despite receipt of the total costs of the vehicles the defendants did not deliver the vehicles. 4. The plaintiff asserts that despite receipt of the total costs of the vehicles the defendants did not deliver the vehicles. The concerned department was in urgent need of the said vehicles and, therefore, it requested the defendants through several letters to arrange and expedite the delivery of the said vehicles at the earliest However, latter went on assuring that they were taking action in the matter and that the vehicles shall be delivered soon but it did not bear any fruit. Plaintiff also aver that defendants No. 2 and 3 had also entered into transaction for the Sale of their land to the H. P Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur, and therefore, it entered into correspondence with the Estate Officer of the University for influencing the partners of defendant No. ls firm to make the payment of the amount already advanced with interest. Plaintiff then asserts that despite defendant No. 2 having admitted the liability vide letter dated 17-6-1981 (Ex. D-2) addressed to the Estate Officer of the said University, did not deliver the vehicles as agreed nor returned the amount with interest. However, the plaintiff learnt from the H P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur, that it had deducted an amount of Rs. 3, 70,875.07 principal amount only by way of adjustment but with the consent of the defendants towards the sale of all the vehicles. As per the plaintiff, it had not forgone its right to interest/damages, thus no amount can be considered to have been paid to the plaintiff by the defendants. Defendant No. 4 was also requested to supply the vehicles either themselves or through their duly authorised agent failing which legal action would be taken. All attempts on the part of the plaintiff to get the vehicles or to receive back the consideration thereof already paid in advance to defendants No. 1 to 3 with interest having failed, resulted into the filing of the above said two suits. 5. All the defendants resisted and contested the suit. All attempts on the part of the plaintiff to get the vehicles or to receive back the consideration thereof already paid in advance to defendants No. 1 to 3 with interest having failed, resulted into the filing of the above said two suits. 5. All the defendants resisted and contested the suit. Defendants No. 1 to 3 raised various preliminary objections with respect to the locus standi of the Director of Horticulture to tile the suit on the ground of his being not a competent person or a recognized agent of the plaintiff, misjoinder of the parties and maintainability of the suit On merits, it was contended that the principal amount received through two bank drafts referred to above had already been paid to the State Government-plaintiff, and nothing remains due from them to the Government. They further contended that plaintiff was not entitled to claim any interest or damages. Exchange of correspondence except the receipt of letter dated 17-7-1979 has been admitted. It has further been admitted that they could not supply and deliver the vehicles on account of the circumstances beyond their control—their dealership agreement with defendant No. 4 had been cancelled unilaterally and they were agitating with their principal in this behalf. As regards the letter dated 17-7-1979 it is contended that plaintiff had sent this letter to the Branch Office at Shimla which had been closed and this letter was not received by defendant No 1 as the same could not be found in their record Regarding letter dated 30-7-1979 it is stated that the Branch Office was not aware of the facts relating to the cancellation of the dealership agreement by defendant No. 4 and, therefore, defendant No. 5, their Manager, in ignorance of correct facts gave assurance for the supply of the vehicles to the plaintiff. 6. 6. Further defendant No. 3 has contended that he was a dormant partner of defendant No. ls firm and he is not liable to pay any such suit amount as per the terms and conditions of the partnership agreement in between the defendants No. 2 and 3 inter se and was also not liable to pay any losses etc He has also contended that he (defendant No. 3) retired from the partnership w.e.f. 19-4-1979 and it thus ceases to be a partner from this date arid as such he was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 7. As regards the claim of interest it is contended that plaintiff cannot claim interest unilaterally in the absence of any agreement in between the parties and secondly., as the vehicles could not be supplied due to the unforseen circumstances, the question of payment of interest does not arise. As regards the deduction of the principal amounts, prices of the vehicles, it is contended that the apple orchard located at village Jhiri in Mandi District was owned by four brothers, namely S/Shri Ajit Kumar, Upender Kumar and defendants No. 2 and 3 in equal shares. The owners entered into negotiation with H. P, Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya for the sale of this orchard primarily with the object of discharging the liability of defendant No 1. It is further contended that it was agreed in between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 that the principal amount received through bank drafts which were due to the plaintiff on account of the advance given for the purchase of the vehicles in question, would be adjusted by the aforementioned H. P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya and credited to the plaintiff against the amount due from defendant No. 1. It was in accordance with this agreement that the payment of the entire amount was made to the plaintiff by adjustment before 15-12-1981 through General Attorney of defendant No. 2, Shri Suraj Singh, vide receipt of the even date. It is then contended that in view of the payment having been made in pursuance of the agreement in full and final settlement of the claim in question, the payment of interest does not arise and in this view of the matter the instant suits are merely for the recovery of the interest which is not maintainable. 8. It is then contended that in view of the payment having been made in pursuance of the agreement in full and final settlement of the claim in question, the payment of interest does not arise and in this view of the matter the instant suits are merely for the recovery of the interest which is not maintainable. 8. Defendant No. 4 also raised—preliminary objections firstly that there existed no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff. Secondly, that plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the said defendant and thirdly that the Director of Horticulture, H. P. had no authority to file the suits on behalf of the State. 9. On merits it is denied that defendant No. I at the material time was their agent. According to them, the relationship was that of the Company and its Distributor*, in fact defendant No. 1 was the only-authorised dealer of defendant No. 4. It is contended that in that capacity neither defendant No. 4 was under any obligation to supply any vehicle to the plaintiff directly nor they are liable to pay the suit amount. It is then contended that defendant No 4 did supply to defendant No. 1 the vehicles for which orders were placed by the latter and accepted by them (defendant No. 4) against payment received. Defendant No. 5 did not file any reply, 10. In replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the assertions made in the plaint by refuting the contentions raised by the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in both the suits separately vide orders dated 20-4-1980. C. S. No. 16 of 1982: 1. Whether the suit has been filed through a competent person ? OPP. r 2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties i.e. defendant Nos. 3 and 5 ? OPD 3. Whether the principal amount of Rs. 1,80,875 has been paid to the plaintiff by adjustment before the filing of the suit as alleged ? If so, its effect. OPD 1 to 3. 4. If issue No. 3 is proved in favour of the defendants then, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest/damages, if so at what rate and how much ? OPP. 5. If issue No. 3 is not proved then whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest/damages, if so, at what rate and how much ? OPP. 6. 4. If issue No. 3 is proved in favour of the defendants then, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest/damages, if so at what rate and how much ? OPP. 5. If issue No. 3 is not proved then whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest/damages, if so, at what rate and how much ? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for recovery of interest only, as alleged ? OPD. 7. Whether there is any privity of contract between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 if not, what is its effect ? OPP. 8. Whether the defendants are entitled to special cost under section 35-A of the CP.C. ? OPD 9. Relief. It would be pertinent to detail that in Civil Suit No. 15/82 same issues as appear in the other suit were framed except the variation of the principal amount in issue No. 3. Thus issue No. 3 in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1982 is to the following effects remaining issues being the same: Issue No. 3 —Whether the principal amount of Rs. 1, 20,000 has been paid to the plaintiff by adjustment before the filing of the suit as alleged ? If so, its effect. OPD A to 3. Issue No. 1 : 11. In support of this issue, iW-1 has proved the notification dated January 25, 1971 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Ex. P-3) which reveal that amongst other, all Heads of Department of Himachal Pradesh, have been authorised to sign and verify plaints and written statement in suits by or against the State of Himachal Pradesh and also to act for the State of Himachai Pradesh in respect of any judicial proceedings. There is no dispute in between the parties that the suit in question has been filed by Shri R. S. Rana, the then Director of Horticulture. There is also no dispute that he was the Head of the Department of Horticultural in the State at the material time. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the defendants. Thus in view of this evidence, the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue No. 2: 12. There is also no dispute that he was the Head of the Department of Horticultural in the State at the material time. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the defendants. Thus in view of this evidence, the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue No. 2: 12. Onus of this issue was on defendants No. 3 and 5, None of them have appeared as their own witness, The only averments made by defendant No, 3 is that he was a dormant partners of defendant No Vs firm but according to the terms and conditions of the partnership deed entered into between defendants No. 2 and 3, he was not liable to make the payment towards any loss. Farther he contends that as he retired from the partnership on 19th April, 1979, he was not liable to pay any dues as claimed by the plaintiff. These assertions stand unsubstantiated. Further defendant No. 3 did not give wide publicity that he had ceased to be the partner with defendant No. 2 from 19th April, 1979 onwards or that total liability of defendant No ls firm had been taken over by defendant No. 2. In any case, the dissolution is amongst the partners of defendant No. ls firm inter se only. By their act the plaintiff is not bound Therefore, there is no mis-joinder of the parties. Apart from this fact, defendant No 5 at the material time was the Manager of Defendant No. ls firm and he had also written letters to the plaintiff for and on behalf of defendant No. ls firm, assuring plaintiff to the supply of vehicles soon The factum of assurance so given by him have been denied by defendants 2 to 3 and as such he is also a proper party, if not necessary party. Thus there is no mis-joinder of the parties. Issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. 3 : 13. This issue is inter related and its decision would depend upon the discussion of the oral as also documentary evidence adduced by the parties 14. Indisputedly, the order for the supply of the vehicles of Mahindra and Mahindra Make referred to above was placed on 31st March, 1979 and its total price to the tune of Rs. 3,00,87507 was paid in advance through two Bank drafts referred to above. Indisputedly, the order for the supply of the vehicles of Mahindra and Mahindra Make referred to above was placed on 31st March, 1979 and its total price to the tune of Rs. 3,00,87507 was paid in advance through two Bank drafts referred to above. The factum of receipt of the principal price has been admitted by defendants No. 1 to 3 15. S/Shri K. C. Azad (D-l W-l), Suresh Chand defendant No 2 (D-l W-2), Hukam Chand (D-l W-3), D. S. Parmar (D-l W-4), M. M Sharma (D-l W-4/A) Chander Shekhar (D-l W-5) have been produced by the defendants in support of their claim that the dispute had amicably been settled by way of payment of the principal amount by adjustment through Sh Suraj Singh, their General Attorney (father of defendant No. 2) in full and final settlement of the plaintiffs claim. Besides this, defendants also examined Shri Suraj Singh aforesaid (since deceased) on commission on 17-6-198V through the Local Commissioner Shri Rajinder Kishore Sharma Advocate, appointed by this Court. 16. From the combind reading of the statements of these witnesses, the factum of Shri Suraj Singh acting as General Attorney of defendants No. 2 and 3 having liquidated the outstanding amount through payment by adjustment with the concurrence of the plaintiff (Horticulture and Agriculture Departments) and thereby the principal amount having been paid, is proved. Further factum of the execution of receipt Ex. D-l W-2/A stands also proved not only by these witnesses but also by the admission of Shri N. S. Sehrawat PW-L It would be relevant to point out at this stage that receipt of the entire amount involved in the two suits has been produced by Shri S S Kan war, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, as is evident from his statement recorded in this Court on 1-10-1986. Receipt Ex D-l W-3/A dated 15-12-1981 is to the following effect: “ Whereas I, Suraj Singh son of Wazir Bhup Singh s/o Wazir Karam Singh r/o of Wazir House Mandi, Tehsil and District Mandi, (Himachal Pradesh); Mukhtar-I-Am for and on behalf of his sons holding Registered Genera! Powers of Attorney from his sons S/Shri (1) Soresh Chander alias Suresh Kumar, (2) Dinesh Chand, (3) Ajit Kumar, and (4) Opinder Kumar, executed a registered sale-deed as a package deal, on 17-6 1981 on behalf of the above mentioned Vendors for a consideration of the total sum of Rs. Powers of Attorney from his sons S/Shri (1) Soresh Chander alias Suresh Kumar, (2) Dinesh Chand, (3) Ajit Kumar, and (4) Opinder Kumar, executed a registered sale-deed as a package deal, on 17-6 1981 on behalf of the above mentioned Vendors for a consideration of the total sum of Rs. 33sOO,OOO (Rupees Thirty three lakhs only) out of which sum of Rs. 23,00,000 (Rupees twenty three lakhs only) remained with the purchaser i e. Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya and which sum was agreed to be paid before 30th April, 1982 against receipt duly executed by the payee. And whereas Shri Suresh Chander alias Suresh Kumar one of the proprietors of M/s. Himachal United Motors and Industries, Mandi is one of the Vendors of JHIRI land and the above said Firm owed a principal sum of Rs. 3,70,875 07 (Rupees three lakhs seventy thousand eight hundred seventy five and paise seven only) to the State Government Departments of Horticulture and Agriculture (Department of Horticulture Rs. 3,00,875.07 and Department of Agriculture Rs. 70,000 (Rupees seventy thousand only) which sum would be adjustable in the grant of aid compartment as additional grant-in-aid to the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, purchaser Since the demand of the State Government has been pressed and I have received sum of Rs. 3,70,875.07 (Rupees three lakhs seventy thousand eight hundred seventy five and paise seven only) from the Estate Officer, Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur on account of part payment of the said remaining sum of Rs 23,00,000 (Rupees twenty three lakhs only). The receipt of the amount is not a result of cash transaction but simply as adjustment of part payment of the remaining sum which was advanced to M/s. The United Himachal Motors and Industries, Mandi, payable to the Directors of Horticulture and Agriculture respectively on account of some Jeep/Vehicle deals and for which the respective Director has authorised the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya to receive this amount on its behalf. Now as a result of this receipt, the remaining sum pertaining to the JHIRI land payable to the Vendors through their Mukhtar-I-Am remains as Rs. 19,29,124.93 (Rupees nineteen lakhs twenty nine thousand one hundred and twenty four and paise ninety three only)." 17. Now as a result of this receipt, the remaining sum pertaining to the JHIRI land payable to the Vendors through their Mukhtar-I-Am remains as Rs. 19,29,124.93 (Rupees nineteen lakhs twenty nine thousand one hundred and twenty four and paise ninety three only)." 17. The case set-up by the plaintiff is that it learnt from the H. P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur regarding the deduction of the principal amount only with further deduction of the amount of interest accruing thereupon pertaining to the vehicles in question from the compensation payable to the defendants by way of adjustment. However, according to the plaintiff, it had not forgone its right to interest/ damages and thereby no amount had been considered to have been paid to the plaintiff by the defendants. la view of this stand taken up by the plaintiff, the material question for determination before this Court is as to how and under what circumstances H, P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya recovered the entire principal amount and what has it done with it 18. Needless to state that land belonging to defendants No. 2 and 3 as also their properties located at Jhiri (Bajaura) Tehsil and District Mandi, was acquired for strengthening the Regional Research Centre, Bajaura and for accommodating the new NARB Project there and the entire principal amount was deducted therefrom Shri M M Sharma, D-l W-4/A was posted as Comptroller, I-L P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur, at the material time. This witness as also Shri N. S. Sehrawat, PW-1 has specifically stated that Shri R S. Rana despite being Director of Horticulture, was also a member of the Finance Committee of H. P« Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya. This witness has also proved various documents from the official record which are Exs. D-l W-4/A to D-l W-4/G. Also documents Exs. D-l and D-2 having been duly proved are not being disputed. Ex D-2 pertains to the proceedings of the Special Meeting of the Finance Committee of the H P K. V. V. held on 15th September, 1981 at 11 a.m. in the office of the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, Shimla, This meeting was beaded by the then Vice Chancellor, namely, Dr. H. R Kalia, amongst other members, Shri R. S. Rana, the then Director of Horticulture was also present. H. R Kalia, amongst other members, Shri R. S. Rana, the then Director of Horticulture was also present. In this special meeting, revised estimate 1981-82 and budget estimate 1982-83 of the aforesaid H. P. K. V. V. were examined. Under the heading "Revised Estimate 1981-82" a gap of Rs 197 17 lacs plus Rs. 4.00 lacs as intimated by Shri V. Raina (the then Chief Conservator of Forests, between the resources and the estimated expenditure was revealed The revised estimates were recommended to the Board for approval. Therein the Vice Chancellor (Chairman) pointed out that the liability on account of purchase of the land at Jhiri at a cost of Rs 36.30 lacs was to be discharged by the end of April, 1982 out of which 13.50 lacs had already been paid from the existing resources of the University at the cost of its activities. He had appealed to the Committee that the State Government departments, i.e the Agriculture, Horticulture, Animal Husbandry and Forestry Departments be requested to provide atleast 23 lacs to enable the University to discharge the standing liability. Simultaneously; Directors of Horticulture and Agriculture Departments pointed out that an amount of about Rs 4 lacs, i e. principal amount of cost of jeeps advanced to defendants No. 2 and 3, shareholders of the land at Jhiri sold to the University may be deducted from the payment Regarding the amount of interest to be recovered, it was agreed that the Vice Chancellor would make sincere efforts to adjust the same from the payment but in case it is not settled department would bilaterally take up the matter with the landowners. The remaining amount of Rs. 20, 00,000 (Rupees twenty lacs only) was recommended to be paid by the respective departments...The minutes of the aforesaid meeting were approved vide item No. 28 of the next meeting held on 16-9-1981. 19. The next letter sent by the Comptroller of the aforesaid H P. K, V. V. to the then Director of Horticulture, dated 12/22nd October, 1981 also shows that H P. K. V. V. had recovered that entire principal amount at the behest of Directors of Agriculture and Horticulture departments who had advanced the amounts in question for the purchase of Jeeps/vehicles. Even the receipt Ex. D-l W-3 affirms the authorisation. 20. We need not refer to other oral and documentary evidence in this behalf. Even the receipt Ex. D-l W-3 affirms the authorisation. 20. We need not refer to other oral and documentary evidence in this behalf. The close scrutiny of Ex, D-2 rather supports the contention raised by the defendants that payment of the entire principal amount in lieu of full and final settlement was-made by them to the authorised agent of the plaintiff who had not only been authorised to receive the payment but also authorised to take up the matter with the landowners bilaterally for arriving at an amicable settlement. 21. Ex. D-l W-4/A when read with contents of Ex. D-2 referred to above show that the entire principal amount of Rs. 3,00,875.07 was allowed to be appropriated by the H. P. K.V.V. as additional grant-in-aid In anticipation of the sanction of the Government and that too, at the behest of the plaintiff. This decision was taken by the Finance Committee headed by Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It appears that the dispute regarding the payment of interest was raised subsequent to the recovery of the entire balance amount by the plaintiff through their authorised agent at a later stage as is apparent from the subsequent correspondence in the form of office letters Ex. D-l W-3/D (corresponding to Ex, PA/13) dated 17-3-1982, Ex. D-l W-4/E, dated 31-3-1982 and Ex. D-1W-4/F dated 20-3-1982. Shri M. M. Sharma (PW Dt W-4) the then Comptroller of Vishva Vidyalaya has categorically stated that when the grant-in-aid was claimed by the Vishva Vidyalaya aforesaid, a bill in this behalf was prepared and then forwarded to the department concerned from which such a grant is claimed but prior to these formalities, such grant is reflected in the budget. He though shows ignorance whether the additional grant-in-aid in the form of entire principal amount recovered vide receipt Ex. D-l W-3/A was or was not reflected in the budget but has categorically stated that after the execution of this receipt, the H. P. K.VV. aforesaid had written to the department of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh (plaintiff) that H. P. K. V. V. has adjusted this amount as additional grant-in-aid by the Horticulture Department and that this was done in accordance with the prior directive issued in this behalf by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, fn addition, this decision was also taken in the meeting of its Board of Management. No doubt, the plaintiff had admitted to have recovered the entire principal amount excluding interest through their above said authorised agent, yet the latter was left with the authority to settle the matter qua the interest by approaching the landowners and having a talk with them bilaterally. In other words, it was entirely left to the H. P. K V. V. to take decision with respect to the recovery of the outstanding amount from the defendants 2 and 3. It is to be noted that as per the testimony of this witness, department of Horticulture was repeatedly insisting on the H. P. KV.V. that the amount due from defendant No. 1 to the department should be adjusted towards the additional grant-in-aid to the H. P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya alongwith interest due on the principal. This witness has categorically denied the suggestion that Horticulture Department did not pay them (H. P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya) this grant-in-aid by way of adjustment. In view of the above said positive evidence on record, the plaintiff contention that they merely learnt about the recovery of the principal amount alone from defendants No. 1 to 3 appears to be unacceptable and thus untenable. In fact, the Directors of Agriculture and Horticulture Departments as also the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, represented the Government. Any decision taken by them binds the Government under the rule of business. Secretary to the Government is empowered to take a decision for and on behalf of the Government Thus, the discretionary powers so given to H P. K. V. V. to settle the matter amicably is legal and valid. The cumulative effect of the entire evidence (oral and documentary) is that defendants No. 1 to 3 have been able to prove that the entire principal amount involved in the two suits had been paid to the plaintiff on 15-12-1981 vide receipt Ex. D-l W-3/A by adjustment before filing of the suits in question. Issue No. 3 is decided accordingly. Issues No. 4, 5 and 6: 22. No evidence is adduced by the plaintiff as these issues are legal one. The only question which arises is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of interest/damages alone. It is well settled that interest by itself does not create any actionable claim. Issue No. 3 is decided accordingly. Issues No. 4, 5 and 6: 22. No evidence is adduced by the plaintiff as these issues are legal one. The only question which arises is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of interest/damages alone. It is well settled that interest by itself does not create any actionable claim. The statutes pertaining to the award of interest contain only enabling provisions by which the Court is vested with discretion to grant interest in certain circumstances In the instant case, there was no agreement in between the parties to pay interest on the principal amount advanced to defendants No 1 to 3 in respect of the supply of vehicles. Even if it be assumed that defendants have wilfully not performed their part of the contract and the plaintiff is entitled to interest as claimed, a suit for the recovery of interest alone will not lie as there is no statutory provision which creates a right to interest in favour of the creditors which by itself can be made the subject matter of a suit. I hold so. Even otherwise, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has fairly and squarely conceded that the suit for recovery of interest alone does not lie. [See Marshall v. The Bengal Spinning and Weaving Company, Vol. 1. 1896-97 Calcutta Weekly Notes 219 and Municipal Committee Akot v. Surajmal Shriram Ginning and Pressing Factory now styled as Brijmohan Jamnalal Ginning and Pressing Factory, Akola, AIR 1938 Nag 119. Issues 4, 5 and 6 are decided accordingly. Issue No-7. 23. Onus of this issue is upon the plaintiff who has produced no evidence. On the other hand defendant No. 1 is approved distributor Agreement (Ex. D-4/D) was entered in between the Company (Defendant 4) and defendant No. 1 through defendants No. 2 and 3. The perusal of this document shows that the relationship between defendants No. I to 3 on the one hand and defendant No. 4 on the other, had been that of the Distributor and Company. It cannot be said that there was relation of principal and agent in between them. It is not the case of the plaintiff even that it had placed order with defendant No. 4 to supply the vehicles or payment was ever made to them In that view of the matter, no privity of contract ever existed in between the parties. It cannot be said that there was relation of principal and agent in between them. It is not the case of the plaintiff even that it had placed order with defendant No. 4 to supply the vehicles or payment was ever made to them In that view of the matter, no privity of contract ever existed in between the parties. Defendant No. 4 as per the terms and conditions of the Distributor Agreement had supplied vehicles on payment received through defendant No. 2. It was the duty of defendant No. I to have performed his part of the contract. There was no other evidence to fix the liability for the payment of the suit amount by defendant No. 4. This issue is decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 8. 24. Under the discussions of issue No. 7 it has been held that there was no privity of contract in between plaintiff and defendant No 4 nor the plaintiff was entitled to claim any relief against him. In the circumstances, defendant No. 4 is entitled to special costs, the suit being vexatious. Accordingly, defendant No. 4 is held entitled to compensatory costs to the tune of Rs, 1,003 from the plaintiff. Issue is decided accordingly. Relief. 25 In view of the discussion made above, both suits are dismissed with no orders as to costs except the compensatory costs awarded to defendant No. 4, to the tune of Rs. 1,000. Let a copy of this judgment be also placed on the file of Civil Suit No. 15 of 19&2. Suits dismissed.