Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment as the appellant was not allowed interest under Order 37, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. United Commercial Bank, Landran, the plaintiff appellant filed suit for recovery of Rs. 1,05,861.10 under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. Notice was issued to the defendant, who admitted the case set up by the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,05,861 but interest was not allowed. Hence this revision petition. 3. Counsel for the parties were duly informed but none had appeared on behalf of the respondent. 4. The opinion recorded by the trial court reads as under : "I am of the opinion that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed for Rs. 1,05,861.10 as prayed. At the same time, I am of the opinion that in view of Order 37, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff-bank is not entitled to future interest." 5. Order 37, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, reads as under : "The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in Sub-rule (1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith." 6. A reading of the rule reproduced above clearly indicates that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree. If the trial court was of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to future interest, then at least interest up to date of the decree should have been awarded which is the requirement of Order 37, Rule 2(3) of the Code. In this manner, the trial court was in error in not allowing interest to the plaintiff-appellant. 7. If the trial court was of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to future interest, then at least interest up to date of the decree should have been awarded which is the requirement of Order 37, Rule 2(3) of the Code. In this manner, the trial court was in error in not allowing interest to the plaintiff-appellant. 7. In the result, the revision petition is accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial court is modified to the extent that the plaintiff is also entitled to the interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum up to the date of the decree. With this modification, the revision petition is disposed of.