Judgment : 1. This is the defendant’s second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below. 2. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of money based on accounts. Suit tame to be decreed by the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed by the first appellate Court. 3. Sri D.P. Ambekr, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of Section 84 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘APM Act’). He further submits that imposition of future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is bad in the eye of law. Following questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the suit was not maintainable? 2. Whether the Courts below are justified in imposing interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit? 4. The point of lack of jurisdiction is not raised by the defendant before the trial Court as well as before the first appellate Court. Both the parties have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Under Section 84 of the APM Act, it is incumbent on the part of the concerned Agricultural Produce Market Committee to appoint a panel of arbitrators periodically consisting of agriculturists, traders and commission agents, etc. Rules shall be made regulating settlement of disputes. After such Rules are made and after arbitrators are appointed, the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 shall govern. Subsection (4) of Section 84 of APM Act states, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be entertained by any Court in respect of disputes referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 84 of APM Act without the previous sanction of the Market Committee. In the matter on hand, there is nothing on record to show that the panel of arbitrators is appointed periodically by Agricultural Produce Market Committee. So also, there is nothing on record to show as to whether Rules were made by the Committee for regulating settlement of disputes, etc. Under such circumstances, it is not open for the defendant to raise aforementioned, point at the second instance before the first appellate Court. So also, there is nothing on record to show as to whether Rules were made by the Committee for regulating settlement of disputes, etc. Under such circumstances, it is not open for the defendant to raise aforementioned, point at the second instance before the first appellate Court. As aforementioned, sub-section (4) of Section 84 of APM Act does not totally debar from entertaining the suit, but it stipulates the previous sanction of the Market Committee. Nothing is produced by the defendant to show that the Rules were framed for redressal of disputes during arbitral process and that the arbitrators were appointed. Under such circumstances and as the parties have submitted themselves to the jurisdictional Civil Court voluntarily. Hence, the first submission made of behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. 5. However, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is justified in submitting that the Courts below are not justified in imposing interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the decree. In the absence of contract, in my considered opinion, interest of justice will be met if the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. is imposed from the date of decree of the trial Court as per the provisions of Section 34 of CPC. However, from the date of suit till the date of decree passed by the trial Court, the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The judgments and decree of the Courts below are modified accordingly. Aforesaid questions of law are answered accordingly. Appeal is allowed-in-part.