JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.6554 of 1996 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant. 2. The appellant/ plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,82,916/- with future interest on the balance of principal sum of Rs.1,53,865-75 at 21.5% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for costs with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 3. The trial Court granted the decree for a sum of Rs.2,84,757-52 with interest at 21.5% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of interest at 6% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.1,53,865-75 from the date of decree till the date of realisation and the defendants 1 to 3 and 8 were liable to pay the same and the defendants 4 to 7 were liable to the decree amount only to the extent of assets of the deceased 2nd defendant. Aggrieved by the disallowed portion and also the denial of interest at the rate of 21.5% p.a. till the date of realisation, the appeal was filed by the plaintiff. 4. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint was as follows:- The 1st defendant was a Partnership Firm and the 2nd defendant was its Chairman and the 3rd defendant was its General Manager. On 31.3.1986 the defendants 1 to 3 entered into contract with the plaintiff for supply of papers and as per the orders placed by the defendants 1 to 3 from 3.4.1986 to 16.5.1988 the supplies were made by the plaintiff and as on 19.8.1988 a sum of Rs.1,53,865-75 was due towards principal payable by the defendants 1 to 3 and as per the invoice and as per the terms and conditions, the defendants were liable to pay interest at 21.5% p.a. on the outstanding amount and therefore a sum of Rs.2,29,050-25 was due towards interest and other charges as on the date of filing of the suit and a sum of Rs.1,53,865-75 towards the balance of principal and in total the defendants were liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,82,916/-with interest at the rate of 21.5% p.a. till the date of realisation. Pending suit the 2nd defendant died and the defendants 4 to 7 were impleaded as his Legal Representatives and the 8th defendant a Company was also impleaded as it was contended that the 1st defendant Partnership Firm was dissolved and the Company was formed in its place. 5. The 3rd defendant filed statement stating that the suit claim was barred by limitation and the plaintiff did not give credit to the various payments made by the 1st defendant and the interest claimed was usurious and the plaintiff can claim interest only at the rate of 18% p.a. 6. On the basis of pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues and are as follows: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.3,82,916/- with 21.5% interest. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 6% interest with future interest as prayed for. (3) Whether the suit claim is hit by the provision of the usurious Loans Act. (4) Whether the 1st defendant is in existence. (5) Whether the 7th defendant is an unnecessary party to this suit. (6) Whether the interest claimed in the plaint is correct. (7) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled. 7. The trial Court answered Issue No.5 holding that the 7th defendant was a necessary party and answered Issue No.4 holding that the question whether the 1st defendant was in existence or not, did not arise for consideration and answered Issue Nos.3 and 6 holding that the interest claim was not usurious and the defendants were liable to pay interest at 21.5% p.a. as the defendants agreed to pay the same as per invoice and answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 holding that as per Ex.A5 the amount due as on 16.5.1988 was Rs.2,84,757-52 inclusive of interest and the plaintiff did not give any details in the plaint as to how a sum of Rs.3,82,916/-was arrived at on the date of plaint and holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,84,757-52 with future interest as prayed for and also holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 6% interest per annum while answering Issue No.2. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Ex.A5 the interest was calculated as on date of 16.5.1988 and the suit was filed on 9.2.1990 and the interest was calculated from 1988 to 1990 and therefore a sum of Rs.3,82,916/- was arrived at and the plaintiff also filed the statement of accounts as plaint Document No.2 and if interest is calculated up to 9.2.1990 the amount claimed in the plaint would be arrived and without appreciating the same, the Court below erred in granting a sum of Rs.2,84,757-52. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the written statement the 3rd defendant admitted that the defendants 2, 4, 5 and 6 were partners of the 1st defendant Partnership Firm and therefore they were personally liable for the amount payable by the Partnership Firm and therefore the Court below ought to have made the defendants 4 to 7 personally liable and erred in holding that the defendants 4 to 7 were liable to pay the amount only to the extent of property inherited by them from the deceased 2nd defendant and therefore the decree has to be modified to that extent. He further submitted that admittedly the transaction was a commercial transaction and having held that the plaintiff/ appellant was entitled to claim 21.5% p.a. interest, the Court below ought to have granted interest till the date of realisation at the rate of 21.5% and ought not to have confined the interest up to the date passing of the decree and also submitted as per Section 34 C.P.C., the plaintiff/ appellant is entitled to claim the contractual rate of interest in respect of commercial transaction even from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 10. Though the respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 were served and the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 7 appeared through counsel and name of the 4th respondent was also printed in the cause list, there was no appearance for the respondents 1 to 4 and 7. The respondents 5 and 6 were not served and no steps were taken as against them. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as against the defendants 5 and 6 and other respondents are set exparte. 11. The respondents 5 and 6 were not served and no steps were taken as against them. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as against the defendants 5 and 6 and other respondents are set exparte. 11. The following points arise for consideration in the Appeal are: (1) Whether the Court below erred in granting a decree for a sum of Rs.2,84,757-52 instead of Rs.3,82,916/- as claimed in the plaint. (2) Whether the defendants 4 to 7 were personally liable as they were also the partners of the 1st defendant. (3) Whether the appellant is entitled to claim interest at 21.5% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant though submitted that as per the Ledgers filed before the trial Court and marked as Exs.A3 to A6, the respondents were liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,82,916/-, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court the appellant failed to prove that the respondents were liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,82,916/- on the date of plaint. Ex.A6 is the Ledger Book relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant wherein the amount was mentioned as Rs.2,96,353/-. Further in Ex.A7 notice issued by the appellant dated 30.6.1987, the appellant claimed was Rs.3,14,526-24. Thereafter, as per Ex.A6 as on 4.10.1988, the amount due and payable by the defendants was Rs.2,96,353/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that interest has to be calculated on the amount of Rs.2,96,353/-at the rate of 21.5% p.a. and if so calculated the amount claimed in the plaint namely Rs.3,82,916/-would arrive and the same was also mentioned in the accounts filed in Document No.2 along with the plaint. Admittedly, the statement of accounts filed as Document No.2 along with the plaint was not marked. PW1 also admitted that in Ex.A7 it has not been separately mentioned what was the principal and interest. He also admitted that Exs.A3 to A6 were not written by him. Admittedly, the statement of accounts filed as Document No.2 along with the plaint was not marked. PW1 also admitted that in Ex.A7 it has not been separately mentioned what was the principal and interest. He also admitted that Exs.A3 to A6 were not written by him. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence produced by the plaintiff/ appellant that the defendants were liable to pay Rs.3,82,916/-as on the date of filing of the suit, the Court below rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim a sum of Rs.2,84,757-52 inclusive of interest and the plaintiff/ appellant did not give any details for arriving at the figure of Rs.3,82,916/- and decreed the suit only for a sum of Rs.2,84,757-52. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the trial Court in that aspect and the point for consideration in Issue No.1 is answered against the appellant. 13. Admittedly, the defendants 4 to 7 were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant as per order in Application No.577 of 1991 dated 12.3.1991 and they were not impleaded as partners of the 1st defendant Firm. Though the 3rd defendant has stated in his statement that the defendants 2, 4, 5 were also partners, having impleaded them as the Legal Representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant, it is not open to the plaintiff/ appellant to contend now that they are personally liable as they are the partners of the 1st defendant Firm. Further, no issue was framed to that effect during trial. Therefore, in the absence any issue or any evidence let in, it is not open to the plaintiff/ appellant to contend in this appeal that the defendants 4 to 7 are also personally liable in the capacity of partners. Hence, the point for consideration in Issue No.2 is answered against the appellant. 14. Admittedly, the transaction was a commercial transaction and the trial Court also held that the plaintiff/ appellant was entitled to claim interest at 21.5% p.a. as per the contract. As per Section 34 C.P.C., the Court can grant interest at the rate of contractual rate and as per the proviso to Section 34 C.P.C., even after decree the interest may exceed 6% p.a. provided the transaction had arisen out of a commercial transaction. But the interest shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest. As per Section 34 C.P.C., the Court can grant interest at the rate of contractual rate and as per the proviso to Section 34 C.P.C., even after decree the interest may exceed 6% p.a. provided the transaction had arisen out of a commercial transaction. But the interest shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest. The trial Court granted interest at the rate of 21.5% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter the rate of interest at 6% p.a. till the date of realisation. Having granted interest at the rate of 21.5% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of decree admitting the transaction as a commercial transaction, the Court below ought to have granted interest exceeding 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation. According to me, considering the nature of transaction, the plaintiff/ appellant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation and the point for consideration in Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the appellant and I hold that the appellant is entitled to 18% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. To that extent the appeal is allowed. 15. In the result, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed and the plaintiff/ appellant is entitled to 18% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. No costs.