JUDGMENT 1. - The only point involved and argued by learned counsel for the appellant is about pendente-lite interest, which has not been awarded by the trial court nor any reason has been assigned for not awarding the same. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,563.78 p. under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein it was pleaded that the defendant-respondents, in order to purchase a Mata-door Diesel Pick-up Van obtained a term loan up-to the limit of Rs. 39,000/- and executed a demand promissory-note on 06.09.1976 in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. The amount was payable with quarterly rests interest. The defendants failed to make full payment of the loan amount with interest, therefore, the present suit was filed. 3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte as they did not appear in spite of service of summons. The defendant No. 3 filed an application for leave-to-defend the suit in the trial court on 27th February, 1990 but the same was dismissed in default on 31st August, 1990. In these circumstances, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff under Order 37 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for a sum of As. 17,563.78 p., with costs.It is relevant to mention that the defendants did not prefer any appeal before this Court. The plaintiff preferred the present appeal for decree of pendente lite and future interest. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff-Bank has informed him vide its letter dated 31st December, 1990, that the defendants have paid the decretal amount, therefore, his arguments are confined only in respect of pendente lite interest. He contended that he made the prayer in the plaint about decree of interest also but the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court will show that the pendente lite interest has not been awarded and no reason has been assigned for not awarding the same, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is liable to be modified and this Court may award interest for the period from 06.04.1983, the date of filing of the suit, till 08.10.1990, the date of decree. In support of his contentions, he also referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India, v. Ravindra & Others- (2002) 1 SCC 367 , and contended that interest is a compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for deprivation of the use of his money and it was a duty of the trial court to award interest on the decretal amount. 4. So far as rate of interest is concerned, he contended that agreed rate of interest in the present case was 161/2% per annum with quarterly rest, but the plaintiff has claimed only 15% rate of interest in the plaint, therefore, the same may be awarded. However, he does not dispute that agreed rate of interest can be reduced by the court for the period the suit remained pending in Court and for future period looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and also examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial court. 6. It is correct that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of As. 17,563.78 p., and the same has been decreed and the trial court has not awarded interest for the period the suit remained pending in Court nor assigned any reason for not awarding the interest in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India's case (supra), in Para No. 37, has considered the meaning of "interest" with reference to Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition), which defines "interest" inter alia as the compensation fixed by agreement or allowed by law for the use or detention of money, or for the loss of money by one who is entitled to its use especially, the amount owned to a lender in return for the use of the borrowed money. The Hon'ble Apex Court also considered its earlier judgment in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy- (1992) 1 SCC 508 , wherein the Constitutional Bench i opined that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages.... It may be called interest, compensation or damages.... this is the principle of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India's case (Supra) also considered its earlier judgment in Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax- AIR 1964 SC 1878 , wherein it has been held that interest is paid for the deprivation of use of the money. The essence of interest in the opinion of Lord Wright, in Riches v. West minister Bank Limited-(1947) 1 All ER 469 , is that it is a payment which becomes due because the creditor has not had his money at the due date. It may be regarded either as representing the profit he might have made if he had the use of the money, or, conversely, the loss he suffered because he had not that use. The general idea is that he is entitled to compensation for the deprivation; the money due to the creditor was not paid, or, in other words, was withheld from him by the debtor after the time when payment should have been made, in breach of his legal rights, and interest was a compensation whether the compensation was liquidated under an agreement or statute. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India's case (supra), in Para 41, also held that it is well settled that use of word 'may' in Section 34 confers a discretion on the court to award or not to award interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit. Such interest, so far as future interest as concerned may commence from the date of the decree and may be made to stop running either with payment or with such earlier date as the court thinks fit. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India's case (supra), in Para 55(8), also held as under: "(8) Award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary with the court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 CPC dehors the contract between the parties. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India's case (supra), in Para 55(8), also held as under: "(8) Award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary with the court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 CPC dehors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced, the court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post-decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline awarding such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously and for reasons and not in an arbitrary or fanciful manner." 11. In view of the above principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that interest is paid for the deprivation of use of money, therefore, the plaintiff was legitimately entitled to receive interest on the loan amount given to the defendants. Even if award of interest was a matter of discretion with the Court, the discretion by the Court is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. As a matter of course, the interest should be awarded as per agreement in between both the parties and, in case, the court thinks it fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of that particular case, for reducing the rate of interest or not awarding the interest at all for pendente lite and future period then reasons should be recorded for the same. 12. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason for not awarding the interest in the present case. Therefore, in my view, the plaintiff was/is entitled to receive interest for the period the suit remained pending in the trial court. 13. Now the question does arise for consideration as to at what rate the interest should be awarded to the plaintiff. 14. The plaintiff placed on the record a copy of statement of Bank Account of the defendants which shows that a sum of Rs. 35,253.75 p., was given towards the loan on 7th September, 1976. It further shows that the total amount of Rs. 59,171.15 p., was paid by the defendants. The balance remained as Rs. 12,089.43 p. as on 16th January, 1982, which includes interest and various Bank charges. 35,253.75 p., was given towards the loan on 7th September, 1976. It further shows that the total amount of Rs. 59,171.15 p., was paid by the defendants. The balance remained as Rs. 12,089.43 p. as on 16th January, 1982, which includes interest and various Bank charges. The Bank charged guarantee-fee of a sum of As. 45.65, Rs. 45.50 p., and As. 45.65 p., in February, July, 1982 and February, 1983. The Bank further charged as As. 5,337.55 p., towards interest on balance amount of As. 12,089/- and thus the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of As. 17,563.78 p. The decretal amount has already been paid by the defendants as admitted by learned counsel for the appellant also, therefore, the Bank has already received about As. 77,000/-, against total loan amount of Rs. 35,253.75 p. The defendants No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte and defendant No. 3 did not contest the suit, still the suit remained pending from 1983 to 1990. The plaintiff is also responsible for delayed disposal of the suit. 15. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned above, I think it fit and proper to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum only on the decretal amount of As. 17,563.78 p. for the period of suit remained pending i.e. from 6th April, 1983 to 8th October, 1990. 16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is modified as mentioned above. No order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******