JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. —The appeal has been filed by the Punjab National Bank against the judgment of the learned Single Judge recorded in O.M.P. No. 86 of 1988 in Civil Suit No. 27 of 1985, dated 18-7-1988, whereby a final decree for the recovery of the amount payable under the preliminary decree by the sale of the mortgaged property has been passed. However, no pendente lite interest has been awarded. At the same time, the plaintiff-decree holder has been held to be entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 13.5% with quarterly rests upto the date of payment. 2. The present appeal has been filed for modifying the said decree only on the ground that future interest should have been allowed from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery of the entire decretal amount. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Opposing the prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the defendant—J.D. has cited various rulings to the effect that awarding of interest under section 34, C.P.C. is in the discretion of the Court. They are State of U.P. v Reishma Devi and others, AIR 1974 All 2V7, in which it has been held that awarding of future interest is in the discretion of the Court and in omitting to say anything about future interest the Court will be presumed to have taken the view that, interest should not be awarded, in Amar Chand Butail and another v. The Union of India and others, AIR 1962 HP 43, it has been laid down that awarding of future interest is discretionary with a Court, Normally if interest is awarded to a plaintiff for period prior to the institution of the suit future interest should also be awarded unless there are any reasons for not awarding such interest ; in Kartick Chandra Mullic v. parshottam Dos Goel and another, AIR 1988 Cal 247, it has been held that it is no doubt true that the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act in a Civil Court and is not to be confined to applications contemplated by or under the Civil Procedure Code. Even then a perusal of sections 34 and 36 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, will show that the right of a person to apply under these sections is a continuing right available to a person even in execution case and hence, the application under section 36 of the Act filed by the appellant after expiry of 3 years from the date when right accrued cannot be barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act (this ruling rather than helping the defendant goes against him in the circumstances of the case) ; in m Maharani and another v. Debt Das, AIR 1929 All 253, it has been held that if there has been an amendment of a decree which was incapable of execution, the period shall run from the date of the amendment, otherwise it must date back to the date of the original decree (this decision also is of no avail in the circumstances of the case); in the case of West Bengal Financial Corporation and another v Bertram Scott (I) Ltd., AIR 1983 Cal 381, it has been held that the Court has no discretion as to whether pendente lite interest should be granted or not. The Court is bound to grant such interest. The Court has discretion only as to the rate of interest (this ruling in fact helps the appellant rather than the defendant) ; lastly, in Mithu Lal v. Deojit and another, AIR 1927 All 589, it has been held that at the time of preparation of the final decree the amount fixed in the preliminary decree cannot be altered except for some reason or some event which may have happened subsequent to the preliminary decree, 4. We have considered indepth the submissions of the learned Counsel for both the parties as well as the rulings cited at the Bar by them The Division Bench ruling in the case of West Bengal Financial Corporation (supra) fully covers the facts of the instant case. In view of the law laid down therein, the Court, i.e. the learned Single Judge was bound to award pendente lite interest and it had no jurisdiction in the matter. In view of the law laid down therein, the Court, i.e. the learned Single Judge was bound to award pendente lite interest and it had no jurisdiction in the matter. The rulings to the contrary cited by the learned Counsel for the defendant are distinguishable on the facts and cannot stand on the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the Division Bench ruling of the Calcutta High Court aforesaid. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. In addition to the future interest granted by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 18-7-1988, it is directed that the plaintiff-decree holder will be entitled to pendente lite interest from the date of institution of the suit till the date of recovery at the rate of 12% per annum with quarterly rests. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.