JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31/10/1994 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 45-B/1984, appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Facts of the case in short are that respondent No.1 had availed loan of Rs.7,000/- on 11.5.1981, Rs.2,500/- on 13.5.1981 and Rs.500/- on 19.5.1981 and he had also availed the entire loan of Rs.10,000/- in his account and for which he had executed written receipts. It is further pleaded that he made part payments of Rs.500/- on 11.6.1981, Rs.702/- on 11.7.1981 and Rs.1,000/- on 10.9.1981, thereafter he failed to pay any further amount towards principal and interest and committed default in payment of the dues of plaintiff. Despite repeated demand he did not pay the remaining amount. Ultimately, the plaintiff sent a notice on 12.1.1984 to all respondents/defendants. But they have failed to pay the remaining amount, therefore, after adjusting the aforesaid part payments firstly towards interest, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of net balance amount/sum of Rs. 13,166.50 as outstanding against defendant No.1. 3. Appellant/plaintiff also agreed to grant an overdraft hypothecation limit of Rs.10,000/- to defendant No.1. Defendant No. 1 started the operation of the said account from 22.5.1981 till the end of 1981 and then he failed to operate this account, therefore his account became sticky. For this purpose also appellant issued a notice dated 12.1.1984 to all defendants calling upon them to pay the entire balance due but they failed to comply with the same. Therefore, after adjusting all credits and debits in this account and on adding interest as per term of agreement, net balance is a sum of Rs.16,353.81 is outstanding against the respondent No.1. Therefore, appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of amount of both accounts total Rs. 29,520.31 against the respondents/defendants with interest as stipulated in agreements. 4. Respondents deposited a sum of Rs.29,520.31 for payment to appellant and learned Trial Court disposed of the suit without awarding other claims to the appellant/plaintiff. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court has failed to consider the other prayer which was prayed by appellant/plaintiff for seizure and sale of hypothecated machinery and stocks for recovery of the dues. Trial Court has also failed to award the cost of the suit. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court has failed to consider the other prayer which was prayed by appellant/plaintiff for seizure and sale of hypothecated machinery and stocks for recovery of the dues. Trial Court has also failed to award the cost of the suit. It is also submitted that trial Court has failed to permit the plaintiff to lead evidence in support of his case, therefore prays for setting aside the impugned judgment/order and allow the prayer of appellant/plaintiff made in his plaint. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that appellant/plaintiff was duly represented before the trial Court and the counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff was agreed to receive of lump sum suit amount which was deposited by defendant in lump sum, a sum of Rs. 29.520.31 and cost Rs.5,000/-, therefore, the order/judgment passed on 31.10.94 by the trial Court is according to law. Therefore he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. On perusal of the order sheets dated 28.10.94, it reveal that appellant/plaintiff was duly represented by his advocate. Respondent/Defendant No.1 took adjournment to deposit the suit amount on the next date of hearing i.e. on 31.10.94 and the adjournment was granted with specific condition that if the suit amount would be deposited, plaintiff has no objection for the same. Ultimately on 31.10.94, defendant no.1 has deposited a sum of Rs. 29,520.31. 8. It reveals from the order dated 31.10.94 that respondent/defendant no. 1 had also deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 22.9.1993 and trial Court was of the view that in this way suit amount alongwith cost has been deposited by the respondent/defendant No.1. Therefore, trial Court dismissed the suit of appellant/plaintiff in full satisfaction. 9. On careful consideration of order-sheets dated 28.10.94 and 31.10.94, it reveals that plaintiff's advocate was agreed to adjourn the case on the condition that if respondent/defendant No.1 will deposit the suit amount on the next date of hearing. Ultimately, respondent/defendant No.1 deposited the whole suit amount in sum of Rs. 29,520.31 and Court has dismissed the suit in full satisfaction. However, trial Court lost sight regarding interest pendent lite and in this way committed the error, in not awarding the interest from the date of suit to date of judgment. Ultimately, respondent/defendant No.1 deposited the whole suit amount in sum of Rs. 29,520.31 and Court has dismissed the suit in full satisfaction. However, trial Court lost sight regarding interest pendent lite and in this way committed the error, in not awarding the interest from the date of suit to date of judgment. Since it was commercial transaction, therefore, appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get the interest as per terms of the agreement for these commercial transactions. In these circumstances, appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum over Rs. 13,166.50 and at the rate of 201/2% per annum over Rs. 16,353.81 from 5.6.1984 to the date of judgment i.e. 28.10.1994. 10. Thus appeal is partly allowed: (i) The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is affirmed. (ii) Appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum over Rs. 13,166.50 and at the rate of 201/2% per annum over Rs. 16,353.81 from 5.6.1984 to the date of judgment i.e. 28.10.1994. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. 12. Counsel fees as per schedule or as per certificate (whichever is less). 13. Decree be drawn accordingly.