Judgment :- 1. The defendant in the suit filed this appeal as against the judgement and decree dated 9.4.2008 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.2442 of 2007, which was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: (a) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based on supply of goods with the following prayers: To grant a decree "a) for a sum of Rs.4,97,705/- being the principal amount and sum of Rs.3,20,423/-as interest as on the date of plaint and; b) to award the further interest at the rate of 12% annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and; c) to award the cost of the suit." (b) The appellant/defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement. (c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. (d) During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one Sudarsan was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A55 were marked. On the defendants side, the Deputy Manager of the defendant firm examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. (e) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, granting the relief as under: "1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,18,128/- (Rupees eight lakhs and eighteen thousand and one hundred and twenty eight only) with interest at 12% p.m.from the date of plaint i.e. 6.3.07 till realization. 2. that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.84660/-(Rupees eighty four thousand and six hundred and sixty only) to the plaintiff towards costs of this suit." 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree of the trial Court, the appellant/defendant filed this appeal on various grounds: 5. 2. that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.84660/-(Rupees eighty four thousand and six hundred and sixty only) to the plaintiff towards costs of this suit." 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree of the trial Court, the appellant/defendant filed this appeal on various grounds: 5. Placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendaant would put forth and set forth his arguements, which could precisely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The trial Court failed to take into account the fact that the suit was barred by limitation, as the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant got stopped long ago and on the expiry of three years period of limitation, the suit was filed, but the trial Court simply placing reliance on Ex.A51-the statement of accounts, as acknowledged by the defendants official, decreed the suit as though the suit was not barred by limitation. (ii) The trial Court was not justified in awarding interest by relying on clause 3 in the invoices. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would pray for setting aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court. 6. In a bid to shoot down and pulvarize the arguments as put forth on the side of the appellant/defendant, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would pilot his arguments by drawing the attention of this Court to various portions of the documentary evidence and also the oral evidence, which could tersely and succinctly be set out thus: (a) The appellant/defendant clearly and categorically admitted the statement of accounts. Even after that several payments were made and the last payment was well within three years before the date of filing of the suit. As such, the trial Court, taking into account the pros and cons of the matter correctly and appropriately decreed the suit, warranting no interference in appeal. (b) The transaction is a commercial one, whereby the defendant-the consignee of the goods, namely, Agarbathis, agreed to pay interest at 30% per annum, after the expiry of 30 days from the date of supply of spoons. As such, absolutely there is nothing to find fault with the decision of the trial Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would pray for dismissing the appeal. 7. Heard both side and perused the records. 8. As such, absolutely there is nothing to find fault with the decision of the trial Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would pray for dismissing the appeal. 7. Heard both side and perused the records. 8. The points for consideration are as under: (1) Whether the plea of limitation was wrongly decided by the trial Court? (2) Whether the calculation of the principle and interest by the plaintiff, which was upheld and countenanced by the trial Court, is tenable under the law? (3) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgement and decree of the trial Court.? 9. All these points are taken together for discussion as they are interwoven and interlinked, entwined and interconnected with one another. 10. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly the relevant facts which are indubitable and indisputable would run thus: The plaintiff supplied stainless steel spoons to the defendant, which was a manufacturer of agarbathis, so as to enable the latter to sell the agarbathi products with spoons as incentives. The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was going on smoothly for some time. However, subsequently, the defendant stopped consigning goods from the plaintiff, whereupon account was struck as on 4.10.2002, which was agreed to, by the defendant. The plaintiff issued pre-suit notice, which evoked no response. Hence, the suit. 11. Exs.A1 to A50 are the bills and lorry receipts, evidencing the fact that the plaintiff supplied spoons to the defendant on the demands made by the latter to the former. Ex.A51 dated 24.2.2006-the statement of accounts acknowledged by the defendant, would reveal that the closing balance as on 24.2.2006 was Rs.5,44,253 and that statement was confirmed by one Mr.Nagendrakumar-the Deputy Manager (Finance)-of the defendant firm. 12. The suit was filed on 6.3.2007, so to say, within three years from the date of such confirmation of account by the defendant. The trial Court, au fait with law dealt with the matter and held that the suit was not barred by limitation. In fact, the records also would evince and evidence that the defendant also made payments till 20.5.2006. Exs.A54 and A55-the statement of accounts would reveal and demonstrate that uptil 20.5.2006 payments were made by the defendant towards the dues. It is therefore pellucidly and palpably clear that the suit was filed well within three years from the date of last date of payment. 13. Exs.A54 and A55-the statement of accounts would reveal and demonstrate that uptil 20.5.2006 payments were made by the defendant towards the dues. It is therefore pellucidly and palpably clear that the suit was filed well within three years from the date of last date of payment. 13. Trite the proposition of law is that any payment made in acknowledgement of the debt supinely and without any demur would enure to the benefit of the plaintiff to claim that the suit was not barred by limitation if the suit is filed within three years from the last date of such payment. 14. The perusal of the statement also would reveal that there were no three years gap between one payment and another payment. As such, the contention as put forth on the side of the defendant that the suit was barred by limitation was not even worth the paper on which it was written and au courante with facts, the trial Court correctly rejected the plea of limitation. Accordingly, point No.(i) is decided. 15. This Court suomoto raised the query as to how the calculation made by the plaintiff could be correct, because ex facie and prima facie it is obvious and axiomatic that compound interest was calculated as per the statement of accounts filed before the Court. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the plaintiff in all fairness would submit before this Court a revised statement, niggard and bereft of compound interest, a copy of which was also given to the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant. 16. It is clear that even though 30% interest was contemplated in the invoices, the plaintiff claimed only 12% per annum, which cannot be found fault with. It is a common or garden principle that the parties are at liberty to enter into contract relating to payment of interest in the event of the consignee committing default in payment of dues, after a particular time. Here, the consignee is a commercial organisation and the supplier is also a commercial partnership firm. Wherefore, the calculation at 12% per annum on the amount due payable by the consignee-commercial organisation even by phantasmagorical thoughts cannot be labelled or dubbed as usurious or unconscionable. The trial Court was right in accepting the claim of 12% interest per annum on the amounts due payable by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 17. Wherefore, the calculation at 12% per annum on the amount due payable by the consignee-commercial organisation even by phantasmagorical thoughts cannot be labelled or dubbed as usurious or unconscionable. The trial Court was right in accepting the claim of 12% interest per annum on the amounts due payable by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 17. What the plaintiff earlier failed to do was that then and there the amounts paid were not adjusted towards the interest agreed. Subsequently, on pointing out the error by this Court, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted a revised calculation of account, in which it could rightly be seen that whenever amounts were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff towards part of the dues, the interest portion of the dues were first adjusted from out of the amounts paid and accordingly, the ultimate amount was arrived at, which cannot be found fault with. 18. The net result is that as on the date of filing of the suit, the principle amount was Rs.6,97,261.00 and the interest due was Rs.1,04,466/-. As such, the suit amount comes to Rs.8,18,128/-. One other serious error committed by the trial Court was that subsequent interest was awarded on the total suit amount, which amounts to awarding interest on interest, which is not contemplated under the law. As such, the judgement and decree of the trial Court shall stand modified as under. The appellant/defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,18,129/-with 12% interest per annum on 6,97,261/- from the date of suit till realization. The pendentilite interest and post decretal interest are awarded at the same rate of 12% per annum, because it is a commercial transaction. 19. The appeal is ordered accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.