Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak, J.- This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 211.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 456/1990, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the suit against the appellant-defendants for a sum of Rs. 46,617/-as principal amount and Rs. 34,203/-as interest totaling to Rs. 80,820/-alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit and restrained the appellant-defendants from recovering Rs. 52,842/- from respondents-plaintiffs. .2. In nut-shell, facts of the case are that deceased Kishan Lal who was a contractor, was given work order by the appellant-defendants in the year 1986. It was stated in the plaint that after completion of the work, second final bill towards construction was not paid to him. It was also stated that the appellant-defendants infact got much more work done as the initial amount of contract was less. It was also stated that when construction work was started at site, the farmers did not allow the construction to be made. It was also stated that the defendants were intimated about the same. It was also stated that work could not be completed for the reason that material was not supplied in time and further additional construction work was also given, therefore, there was no fault of the plaintiff . It was prayed that the suit be decreed for the amount due alongwith interest. In the written statement, defendant-appellants did not deny the factum that the construction work was given to the plaintiff -respondent but it has been stated that the plaintiff did not complete the work in the time assigned, therefore, the amount was withheld. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. Learned trial Court after framing necessary issues and evidence led by both the sides decreed the suit vide its Judgment and decree as aforesaid with costs. 3. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the State that in this matter last bill was not prepared, therefore, the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. It has further been submitted that the interest which has been awarded is too excessive. According to learned Counsel, at the most, interest ought not to be awarded more than 8% p.a. on the principle amount. 6. It has further been submitted that the interest which has been awarded is too excessive. According to learned Counsel, at the most, interest ought not to be awarded more than 8% p.a. on the principle amount. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for plaintiff-respondents Mr. Joshi contends that in view of the evidence led by both sides and the fact that initial work order was for a less amount and subsequently more work was assigned to the plaintiff , it is for that reason the work could not be completed in time. It has also been submitted that it is an admitted position on record that the material required for work was also not supplied in time which caused delay. In last, he submits that the awarded rate of interest which is alleged to be at higher side may be reduced to 8% p.a. if considered proper. 7. I have considered the submissions made before me. 8. Infact the evidence recorded by the trial Court in relation to suit amount has not been challenged seriously and rightly so because in the statement of PW. 1 Ravindra Kumar, DW. 1 Lal Singh and DW. 2 Radheyshyam, it has come that the plaintiff asked for the supply of the material to start work but the material was not supplied in time and further additional construction work was also given to the plaintiff and that took time. Learned trial Court has discussed the matter in detailed while recording its findings on issues. There appears no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence made by the learned trial Court. 9. It appears that in the present matter only grievance made is in relation to the rate of interest awarded by the learned trial Court which is alleged to be at the higher side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to reduce the interest awarded by the learned trial Court from 12% p.a. to 8% p.a. In view of the above discussion, the State appeal is required to be allowed partly only in relation to interest awarded in the matter. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to reduce the interest awarded by the learned trial Court from 12% p.a. to 8% p.a. In view of the above discussion, the State appeal is required to be allowed partly only in relation to interest awarded in the matter. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the Judgment and decree dated 011.2000 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 456/1990 is modified to the extent that on the decretal amount the interest shall be chargeable at the rate of 8% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. Decree be prepared accordingly. No order as to costs.