JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral).:- This is defendants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed with costs, for the alternative relief in a suit for specific performance of the agreement in question and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover the amount of the double of the earnest money along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till its realization. 2. In this appeal the imposition of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit has been questioned on the ground that the excessive rate of interest has been awarded whereas the circumstances do not warrant the grant of any interest. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below 4. Admittedly there was no agreement between the parties to pay interest. However, it is well settled that it is within the discretion of the Court to grant interest on the decretal amount. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides imposition of reasonable interest on the principal sum adjudged to be paid from the date of the suit to the decree of the decree and from the date of decree to the date of payment at such a rate not exceeding 6% per annum as the Court thinks fit. 5. It is also well settled that in case of damages grant of interest pendente lite and future interest is also within the discretion of the Court. I find support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta v. Durga Datta, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 990. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned decree of the Courts below is modified to the extent that interest on the decretal amount with effect from the date of filing of the suit till its realizations shall be at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum. 7. No other point was urged. Subject to the modification indicated above, the appeal is dismissed. ------------------------