Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS/defendants have filed this appeal under Section 100, CPC against the judgment and decree dated 22. 12. 1987 in Civil Appeal No. 5-B/86 passed by the learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, Ratlam, partly allowing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 19. 2. 1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 63-B/81. ( 2. ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and the defendants, who are father and son and doing the business as Girdharilal Dungal took the loan of Rs. 1,500/on 20. 7. 1978 and Rs. 300/- on 13. 6. 1978 and out of the total amount of Rs. 1,800/- the defendants have paid only Rs. 350/- on 15. 6. 1978 and as such the defendants be directed to pay remaining amount along with interest @ 2% p. m. ( 3. ) THE learned Appellate Court below has decreed the claim of the respondent/plaintiff and it was directed that the appellant will pay the interest @ 2% p. m. It is contended by the appellants that there was no agreement in-between the plaintiff and defendants to pay the interest on the amount and the statement of the plaintiff about the oral agreement of payment of interest @ 2% p. m. was not corroborated by any witness and as such the learned Appellate Court has erred in granting the interest to the appellants @ 2% p. m. ( 4. ) THE following is the substantial question of law framed in the cases : "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Court below has erred in law in passing a decree for payment of interest?" ( 5. ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the plaint it was mentioned that the agreement to pay the interest was oral. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to para 3 of the cross-examination of plaintiff (PW1 ). From the perusal of para 3 of the statement of PW1 it is clear that the plaintiff has admitted that the agreement to pay the interest was oral. The learned Appellate Court has provided interest to the respondent/ plaintiff @ Rs. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to para 3 of the cross-examination of plaintiff (PW1 ). From the perusal of para 3 of the statement of PW1 it is clear that the plaintiff has admitted that the agreement to pay the interest was oral. The learned Appellate Court has provided interest to the respondent/ plaintiff @ Rs. 2% p. m. The said interest @ 2% p. m. is exorbitant and usurious and as there is no agreement to payment of interest it will not be proper to provide interest @ Rs. 2% p. m. to the respondent/plaintiff and the proper course would be to reduce the rate of interest from Rs. 2% p. m. and only @ Rs. 6% p. a. The substantial question of law is, thus, answered in affirmative. ( 6. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the impugned judgment and decree of the-learned Appellate Court below relating to intefest @ 2% p. m. is hereby set aside and in place it be substituted that the interest @ 6% p. a. be provided to the respondent/plaintiff from the appellants/ defendants. Parties to bear their own costs.