JUDGMENT D. C. Srivastava, J. - This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 14th March, 1995 of Sri. R. M. Rai VII Additional District Judge, Agra, passing a decree for Rs. 45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent up to the date of the suit and there after pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 19.5 per cent with quarterly rests. 2. The dispute involved in this appeal is very short and is confined to the legality of award of pendente lite and future interest at the enhanced rate with quarterly rests. 3. The brief facts are that plaintiff respondent No. 1 and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were partners of a Firm who were carrying on business in the name of defendant No. 3. Plaintiff Respondent No. 1 remained partner in the said Firm up to 31st March, 1979 and retired on 1st April, 1979. A written deed was executed between the parties on 12th June, 1979 through which, it was agreed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain partners of the Firm and the plaintiff on account of his retirement will be entitled to Rs. 90,000/-, out of which Rs. 45,000/- were to be paid within a year and the remaining amount was to remain in deposit with the firm for a period of one year. Rs. 45,000/- were paid but the remaining amount has not paid, hence the suit was filed. 4. The suit was contested only by defendant No. 1, on grounds mentioned in the written statement. 5. The suit was decreed by the trial Court which awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum up to the date of the suit and pendents lite and future interest also at the same rate. 6. An appeal was preferred against this judgment and decree of the trial Court which was allowed and interest at the rate of 12 per cent was allowed up to the date of the suit and at the rate of 19.5 per cent per annum with quarterly rests as pendente lite and future. 7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. The provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978 were also referred and considered. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. The provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978 were also referred and considered. 8. I do not find force in the contention, of the learned counsel for the appellants that because the plea of Section 3 of Interest Act was not raised and discussed in the courts below, it cannot be permitted to be raised in this appeal as was attempted to be done from the side of the respondents. The reason is that in paragraph 16 of the grounds of appeal, it is mentioned that the interest was payable according to the discretion of the court under Section 3 of Interest Act. The appellants, therefore, cannot be permitted to say that the aid of Section 3 of Interest Act cannot be taken. 9. Section 2(b) of Interest Act defines current rate of interest as under : Section 2(b) "current rate of interest" means the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits (other than those maintained in savings account or those maintained in charitable or religious institution) by different classes of scheduled banks in accordance with the directions given or issued to banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Explanation : In this clause, "scheduled bank" means a bank, not being a co-operative bank, transacting any business authorised by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Section 2(c) of the Act defines as under : (c) "debt" means any liability for an ascertained sum of money and includes a debt payable in kind, but does not include a judgment debt." 10. It was not disputed that in the nature of the transaction between the parties the plaintiff respondent No. 1's was in the nature of Creditor against the Firm and the Firm will be treated to be debtor of the plaintiff. 11. It was not disputed that in the nature of the transaction between the parties the plaintiff respondent No. 1's was in the nature of Creditor against the Firm and the Firm will be treated to be debtor of the plaintiff. 11. Section 3(1) of the Interest Act reads as under : "In any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if it think fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or part of the following period." 12. Sub-section (a) of Section 3(1) further reads as under : "(a) If the proceedings related to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then, from the date when the debt is payable to the date of the institution of the proceedings." 13. It is thus obvious from Section 3(1)(a) of the above Act that the interest at the rate not exceeding the current rate of interest can be allowed from the date of debt when the debt is payable to the date of the institution of the proceedings. This section, therefore, refers the period before the institution of the suit and during that period the current rate of interest can be allowed. 14. There is no evidence on the record as to what was the current rate of interest on the date of the institution of the suit as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. The current rate under this section means the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits other than savings account or the accounts maintained by religious or charitable institution. 15. In the plaint the plaintiff himself claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum up to the date of the suit. Thus, in view of Section 3 of the Interest Act, the plaintiff respondent was entitled to the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum up to the date of the institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 11th May, 1982. 16. Thus, in view of Section 3 of the Interest Act, the plaintiff respondent was entitled to the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum up to the date of the institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 11th May, 1982. 16. The award of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum up to the date of the suit was not seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. In my opinion the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 12th May, 1980 to 11th May, 1982 requires no interference. 17. Coming to the pendente lite, and future interest, the plaint itself shows that such interest was claimed under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vide paragraph 2 of the relief clause. 18. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under : "Section 34. Interest. - (1) 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 adjusted, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in additional to any interest adjusted 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 of 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." 19. A plain reading of the aforesaid section shows that in a money decree the court may in the decree award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable to be paid on the principal from the date of the suit to the date of decree, further interest at such rate not exceeding 6 per cent per annum from the date of the decree to the date of payment. Thus under the third stage, under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure no where it is provided that interest at the rate of 19.5 per cent can be granted nor is there any provisions in the aforesaid section for awarding interest on quarterly rest. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the proviso to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure contended that since it was a commercial transaction interest at enhanced rate could be allowed. In my opinion this contention cannot be accepted. The nature of the transaction amongst the parties was not of commercial nature. Paragraph 3 of the plaint shows that because of the retirement of the plaintiff, his right, title and interest were evaluated, at Rs. 90,000/-. Out of this amount Rs. 45,000/- was to be paid and the remaining Rs. 45,000/- was to be kept in credit for a period of one year without interest and then it was to be paid after the expiry of one year from the date of the execution of the deed. The amount of Rs. 45,000/- was thus to be retained by the Firm, but there is no mention in the agreement that the money was advanced by the plaintiff to the Firm for being used in the commercial activities of the Firm. Since it was not a case of liability to pay interest arising out of commercial transaction, the rate of interest could not have exceeded 6 per cent per annum. 21. Section 3 of the Interest Act does not deal with pendente lite and future interest. Consequently on the strength of Section 3 read with Section 2(b), enhanced rate of interest could not be allowed to plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The lower appellate court to my mind was in error in awarding interest at 19.5 per cent per annum with quarterly rest. The appeal, therefore, succeeds in part. 22. The appeal is party allowed. Consequently on the strength of Section 3 read with Section 2(b), enhanced rate of interest could not be allowed to plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The lower appellate court to my mind was in error in awarding interest at 19.5 per cent per annum with quarterly rest. The appeal, therefore, succeeds in part. 22. The appeal is party allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are modified as under : "The suit of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the defendant-appellants and respondent No. 2 for recovery of Rs. 45,000/- together with single interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 12th May, 1980 to 11th May, 1982 and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 45,000/- from 13th May, 1982 till the realisation of the amount is decree with proportionate cost throughout." Appeal partly allowed.