JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly submitted that interest pendente lite is not governed by the provisions of the Money Lenders Act and the lower-appellant Court committed a serious error of law in refusing decree for the interest pendente lite when the same was allowed by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court recorded no reasons for disallowing the same. The pro note forming basis of the suit provides for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Reliance by the learned counsel for the appellants on the Division Bench decisions in Rajaram v. Nandkishore. ( 1975 JLJ 475 ) and Vimladevi v. Mandsaur Electric Supply Co. (1963 JLJ 779) is well merited as both the Division Benches support the contention advanced by him. The learned counsel for the defendant/respondent submitted that if the Courts below have exercised the discretion in disallowing interest pendente lite to the plaintiffs, this Court should not interfere with the exercise of that discretion. It is difficult to agree. Firstly, where is the discretion exercised or refused to be exercised? Secondly, a Court of law has to assign reasons for acting either way when a discretion has been statutorily vested in it. The lower appellate Court does not assign any reasons. Moreover, as already noticed, the trial Court allowed the plaintiff interest pendente lite at the rate of 6% per annum but the lower appellate Court did not say even a word while setting aside that part of the decree. In the opinion oftl1is Court, interest pendente lite could not have been refused to the plaintiff. The suit was filed after serving a demand notice. It was contested tooth and nail. The amount decreed is the principal money. Costs have also been denied to the plaintiff. There is no reason why the interest pendente lite should not have been awarded to the plaintiff. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that over and above the amount awarded by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 3401/- with effect from 8.7.1976, the date of filing of the suit, till realisation. Rest of the decree awarded by the lower appellate Court is maintained. 1975 JLJ 475 and 1963 JLJ 779 relied on. Appeal allowed.