Judgment :- (Prayer: The civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 4.3.2005 in Co-operative Appeal No.14 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry confirming the award dated 5.9.2002 passed by the Second Respondent/Arbitrator in A.R.C.No.140/2002.) The civil revision petition has been preferred against the award passed in Co-operative Appeal No.14 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court at Pondicherry dated 4.3.2005. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that there was an arbitrator appointed at first in A.R.C.No.140/2002 and while the said arbitrator was functioning another arbitrator was appointed, who had passed an exparte order against the revision petitioner without giving any opportunity to put forward his case before the second arbitrator. 3. The next point raised by the learned counsel is that the interest awarded by the tribunal is exorbitant and that the payments made by the revision petitioner were not given credit to by the 2nd respondent and that prior to A.R.C.No.140/2002, the 2nd respondent has filed A.R.C.No.3797/1996 and so A.R.C.No.140/2002 was illegal and void and that the balance amount to be paid by the revision petitioner comes to Rs.19,113.90/- only. All these points have been raised and considered by the Co-operative tribunal viz. The Principal District Judge at Pondicherry, in his order in Co-operative Appeal No.14/2002. 4. The first contention that while an arbitrator was functioning, the appointment of a second arbitrator and the Ex-parte order passed by the second arbitrator will not bind the revision petitioner cannot hold any water because the first arbitrator passed an order to the effect that the accounts maintained are to be set right and since the revision petitioner failed to appear before the second arbitrator an exparte order was passed. But the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner forcibly contended that the revision petitioner appeared before the second arbitrator but that was suppressed and the revision petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. But the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner forcibly contended that the revision petitioner appeared before the second arbitrator but that was suppressed and the revision petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. But the revision petitioner has raised all his defence before the appellate authority, who while rejecting the contentions, has observed that the payment of a sum of Rs.2,500/- on 3.1.1994, a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 6.4.1994, a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 4.8.1994, another a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 26.12.1994 and a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 27.3.1995, totally to Rs.37,500/-, by the revision petitioner were duly given credit to and if this amount has been deducted, the balance amount come to Rs.1,37,490.90/-. The revision petitioner has not produced any document before the appellate authority to show that apart from the above said payments, the revision petitioner has also made some more payments. Under such circumstance, it is not open to the revision petitioner to contend that the payments made by the revision petitioner were not given credit to. Further it is seen from the order of the appellate authority that necessary endorsements to vouche the payment has been made in the pass book of the petitioner also by the 1st respondent, bank. 5. The next point raised by the revision petitioner before the appellate authority is that the rate of interest claimed by the respondents was usurious. The agreed rate of interest is 16% per annum and under Order 34, Rule 11 of C.P.C., the respondent is entitled to claim the agreed rate of interest because it is a mortgage suit. The future rate of interest was fixed at 6% per annum by the appellant authority. So under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in Co-operative Appeal No.14/2002, which is neither infirm nor illegal. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs.