JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: (Oral) - Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executing Court vide which the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor regarding rate of interest were dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff-Decree Holder filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 12,000/- as principal and Rs. 8000/- as interest). 3. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.2007 decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 24 % per annum from the defendant from the date of filing the present suit till realisation. 4. At the time of issuing notice of motion on 10.05.2010, this Court passed the following order :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that property in question has not been auctioned yet. He further submitted that the award of interest @ 24%per annum after passing of decree is not legally permissible and this issue can be raised even in the execution proceedings. He further submitted that after the passing of decree and order by the Executing Court attaching the property of the petitioner, he had paid Rs. 20,000/- to the decree holder. He is ready and willing to pay the balance amount after calculation of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree. Prior to that interest would be in terms of the decree. Subject to petitioner’s paying Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent on or before May 26, 2010, let notice of motion be issued to respondent for 23.7.2010. In case the amount is paid to the respondent on or before the date fixed above and intimation thereof is furnished to the learned Court below, further proceedings before the Court below shall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case of failure to pay the amount, the present petition shall be treated as dismissed.” 5. The objections filed by the Judgment Debtor are to the effect that interest is on the higher side. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that up to the date of decree, the agreed interest can be allowed but after the date of decree, interest cannot be allowed for more than 6% in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that up to the date of decree, the agreed interest can be allowed but after the date of decree, interest cannot be allowed for more than 6% in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”). It is further submitted that as per the case of Decree Holder, the amount was advanced for household loan and not for commercial transaction and as such, future interest more than 6% per annum cannot be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the matter regarding interest can be adjudicated even in the execution proceedings. To support this contention, he has relied upon authority “Jagdish Chander vs. Punjab National Bank” 1994 (1) PLR 211, “Gurdip Singh and other vs. Bank of India” 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 461, “Smt. Chitrarekha vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma & Anr.” 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 356. 8. In reply to the above noted submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Executing Court vide which the objections regarding interest have been dismissed by the Executing Court. It is further submitted that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The interest granted by the civil Court was @ 24% per annum i.e @ 2% per month. The Decree Holder is entitled to claim the amount as per decree. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of case. 10. In order to properly appreciate the facts of case, Section 34 of the Code is reproduced as under :- “Interest- (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, [with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent. per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum], from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit: [Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent. per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation 1-In this sub-section, “nationalised bank” means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II-For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability]. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest [on such principal sum] from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie.” 11. According to said provisions, future rate of interest cannot be granted more than 6 % per annum on the principal sum adjudged from the date of decree till the date of payment. Only exception to that rule is loan arising out of the commercial transaction. In the present case, the loan was admittedly not advanced for the purpose of commercial transaction and as such, the Executing Court was not justified in granting future interest more than 6 % per annum. 12. Normally the Executing Court should not go beyond the terms of decree. However, where the decree is against the statutory law as provided under Section 34 of the Code, in that case Executing Court can transfer and can grant interest as per provisions of Section 34 of the Code. 13. Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt.Chitrarekha’s case (supra) held that where future rate of interest has been granted more than 6 % per annum and the amount is not advanced for commercial transaction, in that case, decree granting future interest more than 6 % per annum is without jurisdiction. 13. Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt.Chitrarekha’s case (supra) held that where future rate of interest has been granted more than 6 % per annum and the amount is not advanced for commercial transaction, in that case, decree granting future interest more than 6 % per annum is without jurisdiction. This objection can be entertained in execution proceedings or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court in Gurdip Singh’s case (supra) also held that grant of future interest more than 6% per annum is a nullity and without jurisdiction and the Executing Court can entertain the objections regarding rate of interest. The Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Chander’s case (supra) also held that Executing Court can examine if decree has been passed in conformity with first proviso to Section 34 of the Code. The net result of the said reading is that if rate of interest is granted more than 6% per annum except in case of commercial transaction, that cannot be upheld by the Executing Court. 14. So in view of the above circumstances, the present petition stands accepted and the impugned order dated 11.11.2009 stands set-aside. The objections filed by the Decree Holder regarding grant of future interest stands accepted. The plaintiff-Decree Holder is held entitle to future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realisation. The said amount is stated to have been paid in compliance to the motion order dated 10.05.2010. In case the said amount has not been paid, the Decree Holder shall be entitled to recover the same. ------------------------