JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.07.1996 passed by District Judge, Dungarpur, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent - Mangi Lal for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,37,616/- has been decreed along with interest @ 2% per month from the date of filing suit till payment. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : plaintiff - Mangi Lal filed a suit, inter alia, with the averments that on 16.09.1991 defendants Heera and Chhabi Lal executed a promissory note and receipt jointly having received a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month and, as the amount remained unpaid, after adding a sum of Rs. 57,600/- the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,37,616/- has been filed. 3. Written statements were filed by the defendants, inter alia, admitting that though pronote and receipt were executed on 16.09.1991 but no amount was paid; it was claimed that Panna Lal brother of Heera defendant No. 2 was to go to Kuwait for service and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as loan was taken on 11.12.1989 and documents were executed for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-; as Iraq attacked Kuwait resulting in difficult situation in the Gulf, Panna Lal had to return prematurely from Kuwait and under pressure, for the return of sum advanced as loan, on 16.09.1991 the promissory note was executed for Rs. 80,000/-. 4. The trial court framed two issues; as the execution of the promissory note dated 16.09.1991 was admitted , the issue was framed in respect of the defence raised and burden was placed on the defendants; both the defendants were examined and plaintiff along with one Yashwant Kumar were also examined. 5. After evidence was led by the parties, by the impugned judgment the trial court came to the conclusion that the theory regarding advancing a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in the year 1989 was not proved and, consequently, decreed the suit as aforesaid. 6. 5. After evidence was led by the parties, by the impugned judgment the trial court came to the conclusion that the theory regarding advancing a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in the year 1989 was not proved and, consequently, decreed the suit as aforesaid. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court fell in error in not believing version of the defendants; merely because reply to the notice was not given by the defendants, the same by itself cannot lead to any inference; the plea raised by the defendants stands proved on record; it was further submitted that the rate of interest @ 2% per month i.e. 24% per annum was too excessive and burdensome and could not have been granted by the trial court; it was prayed that the decree passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent duly supported the judgment passed by the trial court; it was submitted that once the execution of the promissory note has been proved and the defendants have failed to prove the defence regarding promissory note being without consideration, the passing of the decree is a natural consequence and, therefore, the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit; it was further pointed out that in the written statement of defendant No. 1 - Chhabi Lal, it has been indicated that they (defendants) asked the plaintiff to settle the issue by taking the principal amount along with interest @ 1% per month, however, the same was not accepted and the suit has been filed for harassing the defendants and, therefore, the plea regarding lack of consideration and rate of interest being excessive falls to the grounds. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. From a bare perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the defendants have accepted their signatures on the promissory note and receipt produced as Exhibits-1 and 2; the only defence raised was that in fact a sum of Rs. 36,000/- was advanced on 11.12.1989, regarding which, documents were executed and on 16.01.1991, the documents Exhibits-1 and 2 were got executed under pressure for recovery of the amount paid in the year 1989 and, therefore, the promissory note was without consideration. 10. 36,000/- was advanced on 11.12.1989, regarding which, documents were executed and on 16.01.1991, the documents Exhibits-1 and 2 were got executed under pressure for recovery of the amount paid in the year 1989 and, therefore, the promissory note was without consideration. 10. From the evidence led by the parties, it is apparent that no evidence was produced by the defendants to prove the 1989 transaction though a specific plea was raised that documents were executed in the year 1989; further, the story regarding sending Panna Lal their brother to Kuwait in the year 1989 has also not been proved by production of any document whatsoever; under normal circumstances, not responding to a notice by itself cannot be taken as proof of the claim, however, in the present case, when admittedly the notice Exhibit-3 was received by the defendants and they chose not to respond to the same in any manner whatsoever either putting forth the plea raised in the written statement or otherwise gives credence to the fact that the defence sought to be raised in the written statement has essentially no basis. 11. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the documents Exhibits-1 and 2, admittedly executed by the defendants, were without consideration and the same had any relation to any prior transaction, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard does not call for any interference and the same is, therefore, upheld. 12. So far as the award of interest by the trial court @ 2% per month is concerned, the same being highly excessive and looking to the nature of transaction cannot be sustained. 13. Section 34 CPC provides for grant of pendente lite and future interest at the rate not exceeding 6% per annum on the principal sum. The proviso to Section 34 CPC provides for higher interest in case of a liability arising out of a commercial transaction. 14. Admittedly, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is not in a nature of commercial transaction as the plaintiff is not a money lender and has apparently advanced the sum as a 'one off' transaction; the principal sum is admittedly Rs. 80,000/-, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 34 CPC the trial court could not have awarded interest more than 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 80,000/-, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 34 CPC the trial court could not have awarded interest more than 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the date of filing the suit till passing of the decree and thereafter till actual payment. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 30.07.1996 passed by the trial court is modified in the manner that the suit filed by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,37,616/- is decreed with costs along with interest @ 6% per annum on principal sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 22.10.1994 to the date of actual payment. No order as to costsAppeal partly allowed. *******