Judgement N. C. JAIN, Actg. C. J. :- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,60,594/- with 21% interest from the date of filing the suit till realisation of the decretal amount. The State of Assam has come up in appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court. 2. The counsel for the decree-holder has taken up a preliminary objection, but we are of the considered opinion that it will be necessary to have a look at the pleadings of the parties before discussing preliminary objection. 3. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that it is a registered partnership firm and a small scale industrial undertaking. Paragraph 1 of the plaint is reproduced below :- "That the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and a small scale industrial undertaking as defined under the provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 (Act 32 of 1993), which came in force initially on the strength of Ordinance dated 23rd September, 1992 and subsequently the Act was adopted and made law of the land. The plaintiff is a small scale industry having manufacturing unit situated at Udharbond within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff is a manufacturer of R.C.C. Hume Pipes, Collers, Components and allied products for the purpose of selling the same to the intending customers and also for supplying to the Govt. Departments on valuable considerations." 4. In the written statement the averments made on facts in paragraph 1 of the plaint have not been denied and it is only stated that the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit. 5. It has been averred in the other parts of the plaint that the defendant No. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 placed supply orders and the materials worth Rs. 2,54,412.50 was supplied against various supply orders, the numbers of which have been given in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It is further the case of the plainiff that on the basis of the relevant entries which were made in the Measurement Books, bills were prepared and the same were submitted for the aforesaid amount, but a sum of Rs. 2,54,412.50 was supplied against various supply orders, the numbers of which have been given in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It is further the case of the plainiff that on the basis of the relevant entries which were made in the Measurement Books, bills were prepared and the same were submitted for the aforesaid amount, but a sum of Rs. 49,000/- only was paid and rest of the amount was not paid. 6. The defendants, who are as many as 5 in number, filed only one written statement taking up some technical pleas mainly that the plaintiff has no cause of action, the suit is not maintainable and that the same is barred by limitation. The plea of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence has also been taken. It is further the plea of the defendants that the suit is bad for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck the following issues :- "1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and manner? 3. Is the suit bad for non-compliance of the provisions of S. 80, C.P.C.? 4. Is this suit barred by limitation? 5. Did the plaintiff firm supply materials worth of Rs. 2,54,512.50? 6. Did the defendants pay total amount of Rs. 49,000/- in instalments? 7. Is the plaintiff firm entitled to a decree as prayed for?" 8. Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were discussed together and it was held that the suit was maintainable in the present form, that the same was not barred by time as it was filed on 7-8-95, whereas the supply was concluded on 20-1-1993. It has further been found that Section 80 C.P.C. notice was served upon the defendants, which was not denied. As regards merit of the case, the trial Court while deciding issues Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff recorded the following finding :- "The period of limitation for filing this suit is three (3) years from the date of payment of money becoming due. It appears that payment was to be made within one month from the date of supply of the materials and the Manager of the plaintiff firm also requested the defendants vide registered letter dated 23-8-93 for making payment. It appears that payment was to be made within one month from the date of supply of the materials and the Manager of the plaintiff firm also requested the defendants vide registered letter dated 23-8-93 for making payment. It is also stated that plaintiff completed supply on 20-1-93 and the suit was filed on 7-8-95. So, I find that the suit was filed within the period of limitation." 9. Issues Nos. 5 and 6 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff by observing that the defendants admitted the supply of the materials by the plaintiff and it was further admitted that only Rs. 49,000/- was paid. Under issue No. 7 it was held that the plaintiff supplied materials worth Rs. 2,54,412.58 P. and the defendants paid only Rs.49,000/-. The argument of the counsel for the State that the agreement clause did not provide for payment of interest was negatived on the ground that the plaintiff firm was an industrial unit as defined under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the ultimate decision, the trial Court decreed the suit by recording the following finding :- "For the aforestated reasons I find that plaintiff firm is entitled to a decree for realisation of Rs. 3,60,594/- with 21% interest under the above Interest Act from the date of filing the suit on 7-8-95 till full realisation of decretal amount. 8. Plaintiffs suit is accordingly decreed as above on contest with cost." 10. Having summed up the pleadings of the parties and the findings recorded on various issues, the arguments of the counsel for the parties must be adverted to. 11. Adverting to the argument of the counsel for the decree-holder that no appeal shall be entertained until and unless 75% of the decretal amount is deposited, as is envisaged by Section 7 of the Act, we are of the considered view that the judgment-debtor was bound to make deposit of 75% of the decretal amount within the ambit of the provisions of section 7 of the Act. The word "shall" in Section 7 of the Act denotes that it is the mandatory requirement of law that 75% of the decretal amount has got to be deposited before the filing of the appeal. 12. The word "shall" in Section 7 of the Act denotes that it is the mandatory requirement of law that 75% of the decretal amount has got to be deposited before the filing of the appeal. 12. Faced with this situation, the learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appeal was not only entertained but the same was admitted long time back and that this objection is not available now. The decree-holder should have filed an application immediately after the receipt of the notice taking up the plea of section 7 of the Act and if that would have been done, the Court might have passed an order directing the appellants State to deposit 75% of the decretal amount. But, even if such a course has not been adopted by the decree-holder, it would not mean that the State was exonerated from depositing the amount at the initial stage. In any case, since the appeal has not only been entertained but admitted also, we thought it appropriate to decide the case on merits. 13. Adverting to the merits of the case, counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued two points. It has been argued in the first instance that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the Act as it has failed to prove that it was a small scale industrial undertaking. The argument is not acceptable to us. We have already reproduced in the beginning of the judgment averments made in paragraph 1 of the plaint, which has not been denied in so many words. In view thereof, the Act is very much applicable to the case in hand. 14. The second argument of the counsel for the appellants is that it is not understandable as to how the trial Court has granted a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,60,594/- with 21% interest, when admittedly the plaintiff supplied materials worth Rs. 2,54,412.58 P. We have given deep thought to the argument and are of the considered view that it is devoid of any merit. Along with the plaint the plaintiff has given a statement of account. In this context it is relevant to refer to Section 5 of the Act, which envisages the payment of compound interest to the supplier. We have gone through the statement of account which has been prepared on the basis of compound interest. Along with the plaint the plaintiff has given a statement of account. In this context it is relevant to refer to Section 5 of the Act, which envisages the payment of compound interest to the supplier. We have gone through the statement of account which has been prepared on the basis of compound interest. Above all, the aforesaid argument was neither raised before the trial Court nor any evidence was led by the State in the shape of production of a witness that the amount does not come to Rs. 3,60,594/-. The statement of account attached with the plaint can be fully relied upon for coming to the figure of Rs. 3,60,594/-. 15. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit of the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.