( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-3-2003, passed by IVth Additional District judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 11-B/2002, the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of india has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Life Insurance Corporation of India filed a suit against the respondent on 30-9-1999 for recovery of rs. 1,69,777. 40/ -. The learned trial Judge held that the appellant-Corporation has been able to establish its claim, yet it disallowed the interest and cost on the ground that Reserve bank of India has issued instruction to banks and Financial Institutions for giving relaxation in the payment of outstanding dues. The trial Court also held that the appellant corporation was not entitled to inerest for the period 13-7-2000 to 16-3-2002 i. e. the date of dismissal of the suit in default and the date of its restoration, respectively. The trial Court disallowed the cost of the suit. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for both the sides have been heard. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court committed an error in disallowing the cost. It was also put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Judge committed manifest error in disallowing the interest on the ground that the Reserve Bank of India has issued instructions for the settlements of the claims by giving concessions. ( 5 ) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and decree of the trial Court. ( 6 ) LEARNED trial Judge refused to grant interest for the period between 13-7-2000 to 16-3-2002 because the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed for default on 13-7-2000 and was restored on 16-3-2002. Merely because the suit was dismissed and restored, the liability to pay interest during this period did not cease to exist the liability to pay interest continues till the amount of loan is actually paid back. Therefore, the learned trial Court could not have refused the interest for this period. So far as denial of cost and interest on the ground that the reserve Bank of India issued instructions for the settlements of the claims by giving incentives of concessions also cannot be said to be justified. Therefore, the learned trial Court could not have refused the interest for this period. So far as denial of cost and interest on the ground that the reserve Bank of India issued instructions for the settlements of the claims by giving incentives of concessions also cannot be said to be justified. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the instruction issued by the Reserve Bank of India is not applicable to the appellant-Corporation. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent could not show that the circulars of the Reserve Bank which direct the Banks to settle the disputes by giving incentives apply to appellant. ( 9 ) FURTHER it is not obligatory for the banks to settle the matter in every case. The circulars of the Reserve Bank in this regard were issued in the interest of Banks which did not give vested right to the borrower. This can be of only enabling nature. ( 10 ) INCENTIVES of concessions are given when the parties entered into compromise. In this case, it does not appear that parties entered into any compromise. Therefore, denial of cost and interest on the basis of circulars of the Reserve Bank was not justified. The appellant was entitled to the cost and also the interest on the outstanding amount. While calculating the interest, the amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 deposited by the respondent either with the appellant or in the Court shall be adjusted. ( 11 ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 13. 5% from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree. ( 12 ) THE respondent shall bear his own cost and also the cost of appellant throughout. Counsel's fees as per schedule if certified. Appeal allowed. .