JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1980 passed by the learned Additional District Jugde No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 268/78 (91/80) (273/80-new number). The brief facts of the case areas under: On 21-10-1978, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of र 46,459.76p. from the defendant-respondents with the allegations that on 16-10-1975 Purushotam Khetawat-defendant respondent No. 1 had taken a loan of र 50,000/- for purchase of a tractor and its spare-parts and defendants-respondents No. 2 to 4; Atmaram Khetawat, Hirachand Jain and Chand Kumar respectively had stood guarantee for the repayment of the loan amount by Purushotam Khetwat and the documents in the form of pronote and guarantee bonds were executed by the defendants and that on 23-12-1977 the defendant-respondent No.1 had acknowledged that the sum of र 40,459.05p was due to the plaintiff-appellant from the defendant-respondent No. I in the loan amount. It was pleaded that the suit amount was due to the plaintiff appellant from the defendant respondent No: I on the date of filing of the suit and it was prayed that a decree for suit amount with pendente lite and future interest at the agreed rate of 18% per annum be passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant respondents. After receipt of the notice of summons for judgment no application for leave to defend was filed by either of the defendant-respondents. The learned trial court, therefore, passed the impugned judgment dated 15-12-1980 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for the suit amount of र 46,459.76p with costs and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of र 23,459.76p (treating the said sum to be the principal amount) against the defendants-respondents with the stipulation that the decretal amount may be paid by the defendant-respondent No.1 in monthly instalments of र 2500/- each; first instalment to be paid on 28-1-1981 and the subsequent instalments on 28th of each succeeding month and that the instalments so paid would be first adjusted towards the principal amount and further that in case of default of payment of any instalment the plaintiff-appellant would be entitled to recover the amount by selling the hypothecated tractor etc. and also to recover the amount from the person of defendants respondents. and also to recover the amount from the person of defendants respondents. Feeling aggrrieved, the plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) and the cross-objections thereto have been filed. 2. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. It is not disputed before me that according to the statement of account filed along with the plaint the suit amount was due to the plaintiff from the defendant on the date of filing of the suit. The total sum of र 26,010/- which was paid in the loan account of the defendant No. 1 was paid between 26-11-1975 to 19-4-1977 and the statement of account shows that adjustment was given therefor. The record further shows that vide letter dated 30-12-1977 the correctness of the sum of र 40,459.05p as due was admitted in the loan account of the defendant-respondent No.1 and as noted above, the above said amount has been deposited before 30-12-1977 and adjustment therefor had been given in the statement of account. The learned counsel for the defendants respondents has not been able to support the part of the judgment that the abovesaid sum of र 26,010/- deposited in the loan account should be adjusted towards the principal amount first and the interest will be payable on the remaining amount. The balance sheet shows that after adjusting the amount deposited, interest was calculated and the correctness of statement of account was thereafter admitted by the defendant respondent on 30-12-1977. No amount was admittedly paid by the defendant in the loan account after 30-12-1977 and according to the agreement between the parties interest was to be paid at the rate of 18% per annum. The learned trial court, therefore, erred in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to charge interest on only a sum of र 23,459.76p. 4. The next grievance of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that the learned trial court erred in directing that the amount to be paid by way of instalments should first be adjusted towards the principal amount and not against the total amount due. 5. The power to grant pendente lite and future interest is conferred in court under section 34 of the Code. 5. The power to grant pendente lite and future interest is conferred in court under section 34 of the Code. It does not empower the court to direct as to how the amount to be received by way of instalments paid towards the decretal amount have to be adjusted. The learned counsel for the defendants-respondents has not been able to support this part of the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents that the loan in question was agricultural in nature and, as such, interest at the rate higher than 9% per annum could not be recovered by the plaintiff-appellant and, as such, the learned trial court erred in granting the interest till the date of filing of the suit as also pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 7. As noted above, the suit was filed on the basis of the documents under order 37 rule 2 of the Code and no application for leave to defend was ever filed by the defendants-respondents. No material has been pointed out to show to me that the transaction in question can be said to be a loan for agricultural purposes and, in fact, hardly any reasons were stressed in support of this argument addressed at the Bar. The learned trial court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error by allowing interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of filing of the suit. 8. It has, however, to be seen whether the learned trial court was justified in allowing pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The learned trial court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error by allowing interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of filing of the suit. 8. It has, however, to be seen whether the learned trial court was justified in allowing pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The power to grant pendent lite and future interest is given to the court under section 34 of the Code, which reads as under "34.-Where and in so far as a decree is for the 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 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 : Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per 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 to commercial transactions." 9. The bare reading of the abovesaid provision shows that a court has no power to grant pendente lite and future interest at the rate higher than 6% per annum except in cases where the liability to pay the amount involved in the suit arises out of commercial transactions. it is not disputed that it was not pleaded anywhere that the liability to pay the suit amount arose out of any commercial transactions and in accordance with the case set up in the plaint the liability arose out of a loan granted by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendant-respondent No.1 for the repayment of which the guarantee was taken by the defendants-respondents No. 2 to 4. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court could not grant pendente lite and future interest at the rate higher than 6% per annum. 10. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and instead the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is decreed for र 46,459.76p with costs and pendente lite and future interest on the sum of र 23,459.76 p. and since the fixing of instalments by the learned trial court has not been challenged, with liberty to the defendant-respondent No.1 to pay the decretal amount in instalments and such payment would be adjusted towards the decretal amount and not towards the principal amount as directed in the impugned judgment. The appeal and cross objections are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.Appeal and cross-objections disposed of. *******