P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff in o. S. No. 60 of 1985 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Anakapalle, who was successful in getting her suit decreed partly, aggrieved by the negativing the relief for the rest of the amount and also the relief relating to interest, had preferred the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE averments made in the plaint are as follows: the appellant-plaintiff was appointed as a Lecturer in Hindi as per the proceedings of the College dated 16-1-1981 and since then she had been working as such till now. The plaintiff had been working satisfactorily without any remark. The Special Officer of the defendant bore grudge against one sri B. V. A. S. Naidu, who was the correspondent of the defendant college, at the time of appointment of plaintiff. The special Officer also joined hands with the enemies of the said Sri B. V. A. S. Naidu, and has been trying to victimize those staff members who belonged to his caste or who are appointed by him. With that ulterior motive, the Special Officer has been openly proclaiming that he will terminate the service of the plaintiff under one pretext or other. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 5 of 1985 on the file of this court and the same is pending. It is also the case of the plaintiff that, the Special Officer without any justification had stopped payment of salary to the plaintiff from February, 1984. The plaintiff has been demanding the defendant and its special Officer to pay her salaries, but the special Officer did not do so. He has paid rs. 3,025-00 before the year 1984 as advance on three different occasions and the defendant is bound to pay the salaries, but is with-holding the same illegally. The defendant college is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum as per trade, custom and usage and understanding. It is also the case of the plaintiff that, the Special Officer of the defendant college is threatening that he would not pay the future salaries also and unless compelled he will carry out his threat. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the court may be pleased to pass a decree in her favour and against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount of rs. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the court may be pleased to pass a decree in her favour and against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount of rs. 37,327-25, for issue of a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to pay future salaries as and when they become due, for subsequent interest at 18% per annum and for costs. ( 3 ) THE respondent, namely Anakapalle merchants Association Lingamurthy College, represented by its Special Officer, anakapalle/defendant had filed a written statement pleading as follows:-"the suit is not maintainable at law. The appointment of the plaintiff is under the category of un-aided teaching staff. The plaintiff was appointed by the then management even though there was no necessity for her appointment at that time. The then management used to pay the salaries of unaided staff from out of the contributions made by the Merchants association, Anakapalle. After the management was suspended by the government, the Government appointed a special Officer to manage the affairs of the college. Since then the Merchants association stopped contributing funds to the college. Under those circumstances, the Special Officer is not in a position to pay the salaries to the unaided staff. In spite of his best efforts to get aid from the government to meet the salaries, he could not succeed in that attempt. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 5 of 1985 against the defendant not to terminate her services and also filed two petitions in that suit, one for injunction seeking directions not to terminate her services by the defendant, pending disposal of that suit and another for mandatory injunction to recommend her name for the aid to the Government, and both those petitions were dismissed by the Court on merits. Having failed in her attempt, the plaintiff with a view to harass the defendant filed this suit with false and untenable allegations. It is also the case of the defendant college that the statement of account appended to the plaint is not correct and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If at all, a suit is to be filed, the plaintiff has to file the same against the Merchants association, Anakapalle but not against the defendant. The plaintiff has no right to claim interest and there is no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as such. If at all, a suit is to be filed, the plaintiff has to file the same against the Merchants association, Anakapalle but not against the defendant. The plaintiff has no right to claim interest and there is no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as such. The defendant college is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff muchless the amount claimed in the suit. There is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged one is not correct. The prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay future salaries to the plaintiff cannot be entertained by the court and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any of the reliefs mentioned in the plaint. The defendant, therefore, prayed that the court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs". ( 4 ) ON the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court had settled the following issues:-1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit ? 2. Whether there is any contract to pay any interest ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pay any interest ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay future salaries ? ( 5 ) WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount ? ( 6 ) TO what relief ? 5. The trial Court had examined PW1 and PW2 and DW1 was examined on behalf of the respondent-defendant and Ex. B1 was marked. Ex. Bl is the Bye-laws of anakapalle Merchants Association. The trial Court on an appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence had decreed the suit partly to a tune of Rs. 27,404/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of realisation with proportionate costs and dismissed the rest of the suit claim without costs and aggrieved by that portion of the judgement and decree, negativing the relief, the plaintiff had preferred the present appeal. 6. Sri E. V. Bagiratha Rao, the learned counsel representating the appellant-plaintiff had submitted that though the appellant- plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for, the trial Court had granted decree only to a portion of the relief. 6. Sri E. V. Bagiratha Rao, the learned counsel representating the appellant-plaintiff had submitted that though the appellant- plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for, the trial Court had granted decree only to a portion of the relief. The learned counsel also had pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would have been reasonable to grant higher rate of interest, instead of granting only 6%. The learned Counsel had taken me through the evidence of PW1, PW2 and also DW1 in this regard and also had pointed out that the respondent institution which is expected to be fair and reasonable had taken all technical pleas so as to defeat the claim of the appellant-plaintiff. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of rs. 37,327-25 with a direction to pay the future salary also. The case of the appellant- plaintiff is that she has been appointed as a lecturer in Hindi as per the proceedings of the College dated 16-1-1981 and since then she had been working as such till a Special officer was appointed for the College, who bore grudge against one B. V. A. S. Naidu, who was the Correspondent of the defendant college, at the time of appointment of appellant-plaintiff and trying to vicitimize those staff members who belong to the caste of B. V. A. S. Naidu, and appointed by him, and with ulterior motives. She was compelled to file suit O. S. No. 5 of 1985 which was pending disposal at the relevant point of time. It was also stated that the special Officer without any justification had stopped payment of salary to the appellant- plaintiff from February, 1984 in spite of demands made by her and hence she is entitled to salary at the interest rate of 18% per annum. A specific stand was taken by the respondent that the Government appointed a Special Officer to manage the affairs of the college and since then the merchants Association stopped contributing funds to the college and hence the Special officer was not in a position to pay salaries to the un-aided staff. Several other facts also had been pleaded in detail. A specific stand was taken by the respondent that the Government appointed a Special Officer to manage the affairs of the college and since then the merchants Association stopped contributing funds to the college and hence the Special officer was not in a position to pay salaries to the un-aided staff. Several other facts also had been pleaded in detail. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the respondent-defendant college is a private institution and it was managed by Anakapalle merchants Association, Anakapalle and under certain circumstances, the Government had appointed a Special Officer to the said college at the relevant point of time. It is also not in dispute that the appellant- plaintiff was working as Lecturer of Hindi in the said college at the relevant point of time and she is entitled for salary also. No doubt, a contention was raised that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature. It is pertinent to note here that under Section 9 of the civil Procedure Code, all suits of civil nature are maintainable except they are otherwise expressly or impliedly barred. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:-"courts to try all civil suits unless barred. 9. The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. " ( 8 ) HERE is a case, where the plaintiff- appellant who was not paid salary for the relevant time had instituted a suit for recovery of the said salary with interest and it is not as though such a suit is specifically barred by any provision of law. ( 9 ) HENCE it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable and a finding to that effect had been recorded by the trial Court and the suit was in fact decreed partly. ( 10 ) APART from the evidence of PW1, the evidence of PW2 is also available. A person who claims that he is doing commission business in jaggery had deposed that arrears of salary, if any, will be paid with 18% per annum interest and he had also deposed about the accounts relating to the payment of interest and salaries and other particulars. A person who claims that he is doing commission business in jaggery had deposed that arrears of salary, if any, will be paid with 18% per annum interest and he had also deposed about the accounts relating to the payment of interest and salaries and other particulars. ( 11 ) ON the material available on record, it cannot be in dispute that the appellant- plaintiff is entitled to salary on par with other similarly placed employees and however, recording certain reasons the trial court had arrived at a conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled only to rs. 27,404/- and also recorded a finding that there is no contract to pay interest and hence the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to any interest prior to filing of the suit. But here is a case where the relief was claimed by the appellant-plaintiff on par with other staff members who are similarly placed, and hence having arrived at a conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to a portion of the relief, both in law and on the ground of equity the relief as prayed for should have been granted in favour of the appellant- plaintiff. ( 12 ) HENCE, in the light of the same, the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to a decree for rest of the amount of Rs. 9,923-25 also and in the facts and circumstances of the case, though granting interest at 18% may be on higher side, it will be just and reasonable to grant interest at 12% p. a. , on the amount relating to which already a decree had been passed and the amount for which the decree is being passed by this Court from the date of filing, till the date of realisation. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. However, inasmuch as the respondent- defendant also is an educational institution, this Court makes no order as to costs.