JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. This is an unfortunate litigation between two Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) which never should have come to the Courts in the first place, inasmuch as, the admitted fact is that the appellant/defendant No. 2 was making a joint venture project with defendant No. 1 and for which, project report was submitted by respondent No. 1/plaintiff/Rail India Technical & Economic Services, a PSU and for which report an amount was agreed to be paid. There is no dispute that the project report was prepared by respondent No. 1/plaintiff and submitted. There is also no dispute that the balance payment with respect to the project report was not made. The suit has therefore been decreed for the balance amount payable. The project report prepared by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was for a joint venture project of Coil Spring Manufacturing plant which was to be set up by the appellant/defendant No. 2 with respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant No. 2 sought to set up a joint venture project of a Coil Spring Manufacturing plant with defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2/M/s Bombay Motor Trading Company. With respect to this project the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was called upon to prepare a project report. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff gave a quotation to the appellant/defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs vide letter dated 26.6.1987, Ex.P1. The appellant/defendant No. 2 requested for reduction of charges vide letter dated 3.7.1987, Ex.P2, and therefore, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff vide its letter dated 24.7.1987, Ex.P3, reduced the price for preparing of the project report from Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Rs. 2.5 lakhs. 3. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, first the draft final report was to be submitted, and which was submitted by respondent No. 1/plaintiff on 27.3.1989 (Ex.P5). The respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1 had to give its comments to this draft final report within a fixed period of time, but the same were not given and, therefore, the final bill was sent. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff hence became entitled to the balance payment after Rs. 50,000/- was paid initially by the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff thereafter addressed its letter dated 25.4.1989 (Ex.P6) asking for the balance payment due of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff hence became entitled to the balance payment after Rs. 50,000/- was paid initially by the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff thereafter addressed its letter dated 25.4.1989 (Ex.P6) asking for the balance payment due of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Various reminders, thereafter, were sent which are dated 2.5.1989 (Ex.P7), 13.6.1989 (Ex.P9), 4.7.1989 (Ex.P10), 10.11.1989 (Ex.P11), 6.12.1989 (Ex.P12), 15.1.1990 (Ex.P13), and so on. Ultimately, a legal notice was got served upon the defendants vide notice dated 11.2.1991 (Ex.P17). 4. Defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 remained ex-parte in the trial Court and the suit was contested by the appellant/defendant No. 2. There were three basic contentions which were raised on behalf of the appellant/defendant No. 2. The first was that there was no privity of contract between appellant/defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The second defence was of the suit being barred by limitation. The third defence was that the report was not sent within the period of three months, as has been mentioned in the offer letter dated 26.6.1987 (Ex.P1). 5. The trial Court after completion of pleadings, framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount from the defendants? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP. (iii) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD (iv) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants? OPD (v) Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties? OPD (vi) Relief.” 6. With respect to the issue of privity of contract, and which was the subject matter of issue No. 5, the trial Court has held that there was a privity of contract inasmuch as firstly, because the project was to be made for a joint venture project of both the defendants. Secondly, the letter dated 26.6.1987 (Ex.P1) to prepare the project report, was sent to the appellant/defendant No. 2. Thirdly, a request for reducing the fee for the project report was also sent by the appellant vide its letter dated 3.7.1987 (Ex.P2) and to which reply was sent giving the necessary concession to the appellant vide its letter dated 24.7.1987 (Ex.P3) by plaintiff/respondent No. 1. Thirdly, a request for reducing the fee for the project report was also sent by the appellant vide its letter dated 3.7.1987 (Ex.P2) and to which reply was sent giving the necessary concession to the appellant vide its letter dated 24.7.1987 (Ex.P3) by plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The trial Court in this regard has observed as under:- “(15) Defendant No. 2 also wanted to install the plant as a joint venture with defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 had also requested the plaintiff to reduce the fees for the job entrusted to the plaintiff. There is privity of contract as the job done by the plaintiff was for a joint venture. In the letter dated 31.7.87 sent by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff, Ex.P4, there is a mention of project to be sent up in the joint sector with defendant No. 1 and has a reference of personal meeting of the General Manager (Projects) of the plaintiff with Assistant General Manager of defendant No. 2 and Project Manager of Punjab Coil Springs Ltd., at the office of the plaintiff in New Delhi. Enquiry and request for reduction in fee by defendant No. 2 was not on behalf of defendant No. 1 but was made because defendant No. 2 wanted to install the plant as a joint venture with defendant No. 1 and as such it was on behalf of both the defendants. Defendant No. 2 has never informed the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 was not liable. There was no occasion for the plaintiff to believe that defendant No. 2 has no concern nor defendant No. 2 informed so to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 in reply never stated that defendant No. 2 was not liable to make payment. (16) In view of the facts and circumstances of the present suit and testimonies of PW1 and DW1 and DW2 on record and various documents placed and proved on record, I am of the considered opinion that there was privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants. Issue is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 7. Issue is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 7. I completely agree with the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 5 inasmuch the aforesaid documents, as also other exhibited documents, before the trial Court show that the appellant was jointly liable to pay the costs of the project report, and which were with respect to a joint venture project which was to be set up by the appellant/defendant No. 2 with respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1. The trial Court has rightly referred to the fact that appellant/defendant No. 2 never informed respondent No. 1/plaintiff that it was not liable to make the payment because there is no correspondence on record where such a stand was ever taken up by the appellant/defendant No. 2. 8. The issue with respect to the suit being time barred was issue No. 3, and with respect to which the trial Court has held that the suit is not barred by time by giving the following observations:- “(20) Issue No. 3:- Whether the suit is time barred? Onus of proving this issue has been placed upon the defendants which they have failed to discharge. Defendants have failed to disclose as to how the suit is barred by time. Even otherwise plaint has been instituted on 6-4-1992. According to the plaintiff the bill were submitted vide letter dated 27-3-1989. Defendants did not sent its comments within 15 days as agreed not made the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/-. According to the plaintiff no comments have been received from defendant No. 1 even till the date of the filing of the suit. Thus there is a presumption that the report was accepted by the defendants and plaintiff has been entitled to the final payment as well. It is held that the suit is not barred by time. Issue is decided accordingly.” 9. To the aforesaid findings of the trial Court I may add that the final draft report was given on 27.3.1989 to which comments were to be given within 15 days, and only whereafter, the final of this draft final report was to become the final report. It is only on the coming to existence of the final report, would the entitlement come into being to claim the balance payment. It is only on the coming to existence of the final report, would the entitlement come into being to claim the balance payment. The 15 days period from 27.3.1987 expired on 12.4.1989, and since the suit has been filed on 6.4.1992, the suit is very much within limitation as it was filed within three years from 12.4.1989 i.e. on 6.4.1992. The findings with respect to issue No. 3 are, therefore affirmed with the additional reasoning as stated above, and which I am entitled to do so in view of Order 41 Rule 24 CPC. 10. So far as issue that the report was not submitted in time is concerned, I find that there is no such issue which is framed by the trial Court as to the claim for payment is disputed because there was breach of contract in not submitting the report within time. In any case, even assuming if this aspect is incorporated in the issues framed, however, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that at no point of time, till the final report was submitted by respondent No. 1/plaintiff, was it ever challenged by any of the defendants, much less the appellant, that the contract stood frustrated on account of the project report not having been given within time. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts advisedly this issue seems not to have been pressed before the trial Court. 12. There is, however, one aspect on which I am inclined to give relief to the appellant/defendant No. 2, though this aspect has not been argued before me. This is with respect to the high rate of pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum granted by the impugned judgment and decree. The Supreme Court in the recent catena of judgments reported as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678 , McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181 , Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700 , Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181 , Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700 , Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has held that in view of the changed economic scenario where there has been consistent fall in the high rates of interest, Courts must not grant high rates of interest, more so when the litigation remains pending for a long time. 13. Accordingly, I hold that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff will be entitled to interest @9% per annum simple pendente lite and future till the decretal amount is paid. 14. A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities show that liability was a joint liability of both the defendants as the Coil Spring Manufacturing plant was proposed to be set up which was a joint venture project of both the defendants i.e. inclusive of defendant No. 2/appellant. The offer was also given to the appellant who had asked for reduction and concession, and which was given the said concession. At no point of time any dispute was ever raised by writing even a letter by the appellant that it was not liable to make payment of the suit amount and which is the balance due for the project report submitted. 15. In view of the above, the present appeal is partially accepted, limited to reducing the pendente lite and future interest to 9% per annum simple. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.