A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall govern the disposal of another connected appeal being M. A. No. 155/ 98 as both these appeals involve identical questions of law and facts. The present appeal is filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Order 43, Rule 1 of C. P. Code against the judgment/ decree, dated 10. 12. 1997, passed by learned XVIth Additional District Judge, Indore, in C. S. No. 540-B/91. In order to appreciate the issue for the disposal of this appeal, few facts need mention. In fact a very short legal question is involved in these two appeals. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is the plaintiff. They filed a suit against appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the recovery of Rs. 52,331. 84 paise. The respondent No. 1 also claimed interest pendente lite at the rate of 18% p. a. on the said amount from the date of suit till its realisation. Though the suit was contested by defendants, the Trial Court by impugned judgment and decree was pleased to decree the entire claim of the plaintiff. It was held that defendants are liable to pay interest at the monthly rate of Rs. 1,50 paise on the decreed sum (Rs. 52,331. 84 paise) from the date of suit, i. e. 28. 7. 1982 till its realisation. ( 3 ) THE defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. Code against the impugned judgment and the decree. However, perusal of memo of appeal shows that appellants have confined the challenge in appeal only to the extent of award of pendente lite interest at the rate of Rs. 1. 50 per month. In other words, the appellant has accepted the entire judgment. and decree but they are only aggrieved by the award of interest pendente lite from the date of suit till realisation. The question, therefore, that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Trial Court was justified in its discretion conferred under Section 34 of C. P. Code in awarding interest pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1. 50 paise per month on the principal sum? ( 4 ) NONE has appeared for either parties. I did not have the assistance of any Counsel on both sides. 1. 50 paise per month on the principal sum? ( 4 ) NONE has appeared for either parties. I did not have the assistance of any Counsel on both sides. ( 5 ) HAVING perused the entire record including the memo of appeal. 1 do not find any substance in the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. As observed supra, in principle, the defendants (appellants) have accepted the entire decree passed against them and what was challenged was only the imposition of interest and its rate pendente lite. ( 6 ) PERUSAL of grounds contained in memo of appeal shows that there are only two grounds. It does not in my opinion justify the challenge made in appeal to get rid of the finding recorded by the Trial Court. ( 7 ) IT is dear from the pleadings and the finding of Trial Court that the transaction in question was that of commercial one. It was against a supply of cotton made by plaintiff to defendants. It was the case of plaintiff that defendants though received the goods did not make the fuu payment. PW-1, Dinesh Agrawal, in clear terms said in his deposition that in case if no payment is made within fiftee days the agreement was to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1. 50 per month. It is dear from his deposition in para 4 of examination-in-chief. ( 8 ) SECTION 34 confers discretion on the Court in awarding interest pendente lite from the date of suit till realisation. In a commercial transaction, if the agreement to charge interest at a particular rate is pleaded and proved on evidence by the plaintiff, the Court has power to award the interest at the claimed. So was done in this case while awarding by the Trial Court at the rate of Rs. 1. 50 paise per month. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in awarding interest by the Trial Court at the rate of Rs. 1. 50 paise per month from the date of suit till realisation. I concur with the finding and uphold it. ( 9 ) I was able to notice one infirmity in the appeal. 1. 50 paise per month. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in awarding interest by the Trial Court at the rate of Rs. 1. 50 paise per month from the date of suit till realisation. I concur with the finding and uphold it. ( 9 ) I was able to notice one infirmity in the appeal. In fact I could have and rather should have dismissed the appeal on this ground alone butsince none has appeared for parties nor any objection was even raised even by the respondent at any time much less at the time of hearing, I did not think it proper to dismiss the appeal on that ground except to mention it. ( 10 ) IN my opinion, appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of C. P. Code is not maintainable, Admittedly, appeals under Order 43, Rule 1 are filed against an order passed in suits but not against the decree. The appellant should have filed appeal under Section 96 of C. P. Code are regular first-appeal and should have also paid ad veloram Court-fees by properly making valuation of appeal keeping in view the law laid down ;-by their Lordships of Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Mistrilal, where their Lordships had the occasion to consider this aspect of Court fees. This is what their Lordships had held:"hence the amount of pendente lite interest decreed is not to be included in the 'amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal' for the purposes of Art. I of Schedule I of the Act unless the appellant specifically challenges the correctness of the decree for the amount of interest pendente lite independently of the claim to set aside that decree. " ( 11 ) SINCE I have expressed my opinion on the merits of the appeal by concurring with the finding of Trial Court on merits, I do not wish to add anything except to make mention of the several infirmities which have come to my notice while perusing the record. ( 12 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion appeal fails and dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .