L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this second appeal, the defendant in OS No. 220 of 1986 challenges the judgment and decree in AS No. 64 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Nandyal. ( 2 ) THE respondent filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,803. 00together with interest @ 24% from 25-2-1985. The basis of the claim was that the respondent entrusted the work of construction of the building to the appellant and after the completion of the work, it paid an amount of Rs. 16,320. 00 on 25-2-1985. However, on verification it was found that it has to pay only Rs. 5,517. 00 and accordingly asked appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 10,803. 00. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to respondents, though the appellant acknowledged the liability to refund, he did not refund the same and a notice dated 20-10-1985 was issued calling upon him to pay the amount with interest at 24%. Since, the appellant failed to comply the demand made under notice, he filed the suit. ( 4 ) THE appellant herein filed a written statement admitting the factum of having been paid an amount of Rs. 10,803. 00 in excess. It was his case that he expressed his readiness and willingness to refund the excess amount. However, he disputed the liability to pay the interest at 24% per annum. The dispute in the suit was only as to the liability of the appellant to pay the interest. ( 5 ) THE trial Court framed the issues and oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. The trial Court by its judgment dated 19-7-1987 held that the appellant was liable to pay the principal amount of Rs. 10,803. 00. Since there was neither any contract for interest nor any denial of the liability by the appellants, it held that the respondent was not entitled for the interest. Accordingly, a decree was passed for an amount of Rs. 10,803. 00. ( 6 ) THE respondent filed AS No. 64 of 1988 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal challenging the decree of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that the interest was payable under the provisions of the Interest Act. Hence, this second appeal. 10,803. 00. ( 6 ) THE respondent filed AS No. 64 of 1988 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal challenging the decree of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that the interest was payable under the provisions of the Interest Act. Hence, this second appeal. ( 7 ) SRI M. Mohan Krishna learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there was absolutely no basis for the claim of interest by the respondent. According to him, there was neither agreement for payment of interest nor did the respondent claimed the interest under the provisions of the Interest Act. Since, their claim of the interest was based on the existing usage and custom, the same ought not to have been granted, unless the respondent established the existence of such a usage or custom in respect of refund of excess amount also. ( 8 ) THE arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant were heard on 7-3-2002. Learned Counsel for appellant sought time for making his submissions. According to his request, the matter was directed to be listed today. The case is listed as item No. 1 in the weekly cause list from 11-3-2002 to 16-3-2002. There was no representation on behalf of the respondents when the case was called. Hence, the matter is decided on the basis of the material available on record. ( 9 ) IT is a settled principle of law that payment of interest is a matter of contract between the parties; or is subject to the provisions of any statute. It is not in dispute that the amount that was due from the appellant was not on account of any borrowing by him or by any such transaction. Admittedly, the amount was paid inadvertently by the respondents themselves. Thus the appellant cannot be accused of withholding the amount or neglecting to pay. The amount was paid on 25-2-1985. It was only some time in May 1985, that the respondent realised the making of excess payment. The appellant addressed letter dated 4-6-1985 which was marked as Ex. A2, accepting the factum of having been paid the amount in excess and offered to refund the same within 8 days. The amount was paid on 25-2-1985. It was only some time in May 1985, that the respondent realised the making of excess payment. The appellant addressed letter dated 4-6-1985 which was marked as Ex. A2, accepting the factum of having been paid the amount in excess and offered to refund the same within 8 days. It has come in the evidence and pleadings that when the appellant offered to repay the amount, the respondent refused to receive the same on the ground that the appellant should pay the interest @ 24%. The deposition of the appellant herein in this regard was not at all contradicted. ( 10 ) IN the plaint, the respondent has categorically stated that the appellant is liableto pay the amount of Rs. 10,803. 00together with interest @ 24%. The only basis pleaded for such a payment was the "trade custom and usage". Admittedly, a contract was entered into between the respondent and appellant on 12-3-1981 for the work entrusted to the appellant. It is not even averred that the said agreement contemplates payment of any interest on the amounts paid in excess either inadvertently or otherwise. Further, having pleaded "trade custom and usage", the respondent did not examine any one, nor filed any documents to show that there exists any trade custom or usage for payment of 24% interest on amounts paid inadvertently that too in a contracts relating to construction of building. ( 11 ) THE Lower appellate Court awarded the interest relying upon the provisions of Interest Act, 1977. The amount of Rs. 10,803. 00was treated as debt within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act. Another factor which was taken into consideration by the lower appellate Court was that the appellant did not refund the amount even after filing of the suit. ( 12 ) AS observed earlier, the respondent did not plead that he was entitled for the interest under the provisions of the Interest Act. Application of the provisions of the Interest Act, may appear to be purely legal in contradiction to the factual aspect. However, unless the necessary factual foundation is laid down, provisions of law cannot be applied as a matter of course. Application of the provisions of the Interest Act, may appear to be purely legal in contradiction to the factual aspect. However, unless the necessary factual foundation is laid down, provisions of law cannot be applied as a matter of course. It is only when a specific, plea is taken that the amount that was paid in excess to the appellant constitutes the debt within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the said Act, the appellant would have been in a position to lead the necessary evidence to show as to whether such a plea is tenable. In the absence of the pleading to that effect, the appellant herein was handicapped from placing the necessary evidence to show as to how it does not come within the said definition. Further, the grant of interest under Section 4 of the Act is not a matter of course. It depends on various circumstances to be taken into account, which need to be pleaded and proved. When there was no plea by the respondents that he was entitled for interest under the Interest Act and on the other hand, when it was his specific case that the interest was payable under the "trade custom and usage", which he failed to establish; the ground and basis for grant of such interest did not exist. Thus the order of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained in law. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in AS No. 64 of 1988 is set aside and the second appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.