JUDGMENT 1. This is defendants' appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur in Civil Suit No. 28/79. The brief facts are as under:- 2. The plaintiff-respondent-Punjab National Bank, Dholpur had filed a suit against the defendant-appellant on or about 28.2.1979 stating that the defendant-appellant had taken credit facilities and loan from the plaintiff-Bank for running his proprietary concern in the name of M/s Mangal Industries has created a charge on his immovable properties besides hypothecating the machinery in favour of the plaintiff-Bank and that the amount was payable in accordance with the agreement arrived at between the parties with interest at the rate of 71/2% above the Reserve Bank of India's rate of interest and that the amount due was acknowledged in writing by the defendant-appellant and that a sum of Rs. 39,912.0 P. was due to the plaintiff-Bank from the defendant-appellant as on 22.2.1979. The plaintiff-Bank thus prayed that the decree for the suit amount be passed besides a preliminary decretal amount and in case of his failure to pay the same to sell the property mortgaged for realisation of the decretal amount and costs. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant only on the grounds that he had not hypothecated any machinery and that the mortgage created was not proper and that he was entitled to pay the amount due from him in annual instalments of Rs. 1000/- each. After framing the necessary issues and according to the evidence produced by the parties besides hearing their learned counsel, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment passed the impugned decree holding that the defendant-appellant was liable to pay to the plaintiff-Bank a sum of Rs. 27,124.53 P. as on the date of filing of the suit and the suit amount is payable by the defendant with interest at the rate of 13% per annum till the payment is made and also passed the preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay the amount within a period of six months from the date of the impugned judgment, failing which, the suit property has been ordered to be sold for realisation of the amount in question. Feeling aggrieved the defendant-appellant had approached this Court by filing this appeal. 3. Feeling aggrieved the defendant-appellant had approached this Court by filing this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has contended that the learned Trial Court has allowed interest at the agreed rate although it had a discretion to grant interest at a lower rate for the period that the suit remained pending. 5. It cannot be disputed that discretion has to be exercised by every Court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and discretion vested in every Court is judicial and not arbitrary. In the present case, the defendant-appellant who had taken loan from the plaintiff-Bank as early as in 1974 did not pay any amount, and no good ground has been made out for not paying the same. The Bank is a public institution and has to run for the benefit of the public at large and its money cannot be swindled by the person who had no intention of repaying the amount. The exercise of discretion in favour of persons except those who by the compulsion of forced circumstances, which is not the case of the defendant-appellant would amount denial of justice not the plaintiff but to the public at large. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court erred in granting the rate of interest at the agreed rate while allowing the claim of the plaintiff. 6. It has next been contended that the suit amount included the interest due till the date of filing of the suit. 7. Under the agreement entered into between the parties the plaintiff-Bank had a right to add interest in the amount found due in the balance account of the defendant with agreed period of rests and whenever such amount of interest was to be calculated it was on the balance which would include the earlier interest added to the earlier balance. This practice of the Bank is recognised and is permissible under the agreement between the parties and, as such, no defect can be found in this respect also in the impugned judgment and decree. 8. No other point has been raised before me. 9. This appeal is without any merit and is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******