Judgment 1. The defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit O.S.No.2431/2003 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai are the appellants in the first appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent in the appeal. The respondent herein filed the above said suit on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,29,200/- along with a sum of Rs.1,90,512/- towards interest on the above said sum at the rate of 24% per annum up to the date of the suit and also for future interest. 2. The said claim was made on the basis of the plaint averments that the respondent herein/plaintiff, pursuant to an agreement between the respondent herein and the second appellant/second defendant, who was representing the first appellant/first defendant firm as one of its partners, put up a construction as per the specifications of the respondent/plaintiff on the understanding that the appellants herein/defendants should make payment as per the bills to be raised by the respondent/plaintiff in stages; that the entire construction work of a factory premises for the use of the appellants herein/defendants, according to the specifications and requirements of the appellants/defendants, was commenced in the month of March 2001; that the same was completed in the month of October 2001 and the inauguration function of the factory premises was conducted on 04.11.2001 and that the total bills submitted by the respondent herein/plaintiff for the construction of the factory premises, including electrical wiring, plumbing and sanitary works worked out to Rs.21,04,119.27P, but the defendants have made payments through cheques to the tune of Rs.15,75,000/- only, leaving a balance of Rs.5,29,119.29P, which is rounded to Rs.5,29,200/-. According to the further averment made in the plaint, the defendants admitted the balance amount due from them, but pleaded for time, as they were awaiting some foreign bill payments and assured that they would be settling the amount sooner than later. However, subsequently they did not keep the promise, which forced the respondent herein/plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 25.02.2003 calling upon the appellants/defendants to pay the above said amount, namely Rs.5,29,200/- towards principal and interest on the above said amount at the rate of 24% per annum for the period commencing from November 2001 onwards. The notice was served on the first defendant but the second defendant simply evaded service of the said notice. The notice was served on the first defendant but the second defendant simply evaded service of the said notice. Even after the service of notice, the defendants not only failed to make payment of the amount claimed in the notice, but also failed to issue any reply. Based on the above said plaint averments, the respondent herein/plaintiff had prayed for passing of a decree directing the appellants herein/defendants to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.7,19,712/- representing the above said amount of principal and interest up to the date of filing of the suit along with future interest and also cost. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellants herein/defendants contending that there was no written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants; that the execution of the construction work was defective and that the material used for the construction of the factory were of inferior quality. It was also contended by the appellants herein/defendants in their written statement that certain works were left incomplete by the respondent herein/plaintiff and they were forced to engage others to complete those works. It is also their contention made in the written statement that because of the defective execution of the construction work, there was possible loss of goodwill from the foreign buyers who would visit the factory before placing orders; that regarding the same a letter dated 25.10.2001 came to be issued by the appellants herein/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff and that due to the defective execution and owing to the negligence on the part of the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/defendants had suffered a loss, which could be worked out to Rs.5,00,000/-. It was also contended that the rate charged by the respondent/plaintiff was highly excessive and exorbitant. With the above said pleadings, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the above said pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed three issues, which are as follows: "1.Whether the contention of the defendants that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the construction of the building is correct? 2. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed by the defendants? 3. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled?" 5. Only one witness was examined as PW1 and 24 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A24 on the side of the plaintiff. 2. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed by the defendants? 3. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled?" 5. Only one witness was examined as PW1 and 24 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A24 on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants also only one witness was examined as DW1 and three documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3. The report of the Commissioner appointed by the court below came to be marked as Ex.C1. 6. The learned trial judge heard the arguments advanced on both sides and considered the pleadings and evidence in the light of the points raised in the arguments advanced on both sides. Upon such consideration, the learned trial judge accepted the case of the plaintiff that there was an agreement pursuant to which the construction of the factory building was entrusted to the plaintiff by the defendants, with the understanding that the plaintiff could raise bills as and when the work progressed and the defendants had to make payment on such bills. The learned trial judge also held that the total amount payable for the execution of the construction work undertaken by the plaintiff was Rs.21,04,119.27P, out of which, only a sum of Rs.15,75,000/-had been paid leaving a balance of Rs.5,29,200/-to be paid. The learned trial judge also held that there was no murmur of any defective execution of the construction or use of materials of inferior quality before ever the plaintiff issued the notice calling upon the defendants to make payment of the balance amount with interest and that on the other hand, the defendant had clearly admitted the balance amount to be paid was Rs.5,29,119,27P and took time for payment of the said amount stating that they had to get payment on some foreign bills and that as soon as they would get the amount, they would settle the claim. 7. Marshalling the evidence adduced on both sides, including the admission made by the second defendant who figured as DW1, the learned trial judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,29,200/- towards the balance amount of the construction cost. 7. Marshalling the evidence adduced on both sides, including the admission made by the second defendant who figured as DW1, the learned trial judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,29,200/- towards the balance amount of the construction cost. As the construction was over, the building was handed over to the defendants in October 2011 and the inauguration of the building was made on 04.11.2001, the learned trial judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable interest on the said amount from 01.11.2001. However opining that the claim of 24% per annum interest was high, the learned trial judge chose to award an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of arisal of cause of action i.e. from 01.11.2001 till the date of realisation. The above said decree of the trial court dated 11.09.2007 is challenged in this appeal suit on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of appeal. 8. It is contended by the appellants that the court below erred in placing reliance on Ex.A10 letter sent by the appellants on 18.09.2001, which was in reply to a letter sent by the plaintiff on 28.08.2001, marked as Ex.A8. According to the appellants herein/defendants, the same reflected only the estimate of the additional construction cost and the same was neither accepted nor approved by the appellants herein/defendants and that therefore the reliance made on Ex.A10, according to the appellants, is totally perverse. It is also contended by the appellants that the trial court committed an error in totally failing to consider the letter dated 25.10.2001 sent by the appellants, a copy of which was marked as Ex.A2 informing the respondent/plaintiff of the defects found in the construction and asking the respondent/plaintiff to rectify the same. It is also contended by the appellants/defendants that the evidence of DW1 was misread to arrive at a conclusion that there was an admission regarding the balance amount to be paid by the appellants herein/defendants. Yet another contention has also been raised to the effect that the interest awarded by the trial court at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation of the decretal amount is unsustained in law. 9. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Yet another contention has also been raised to the effect that the interest awarded by the trial court at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation of the decretal amount is unsustained in law. 9. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the appellants/defendants did admit their liability to the extent of the amount claimed by the respondent in the plaint? 2. Whether the appellants'/defendants' contention that there was defective execution of the construction work which caused loss of goodwill to the appellants/defendants and that hence the respondent/plaintiff shall not be entitled to recover the amount as claimed in the plaint can be sustained? 3. Whether the award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.11.2001 till realisation is against law requiring interference by this court in this appeal? 10. The arguments advanced by Mr. V. Sundaravadanam, learned counsel appearing for Mr. V. Bharathidasan, learned counsel on record for the appellants/defendants and by Mr. M. Renton, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff were heard. The materials available on record including the pleadings, evidence both oral and documentary, were also perused. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants repeated and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff made his submissions justifying each and every finding of the trial court and supporting the judgment and decree of the trial court. 12. This court paid its anxious consideration to the above said submissions made on both sides. Point Nos.1 and 2 13. It is not in dispute and on the other hand, it is an admitted fact that the second appellant/second defendant is a partner in the first appellant/first defendant firm and that the first defendant firm is a registered firm. It is also an admitted fact that an extent of 1.00 acre of land comprised in Old S.No.98 New S.No.92 Eachankaranai Village, Kannavakkam P.O., Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, belonged to the first appellant firm and the appellants herein/defendants entrusted the work of constructing a factory building as per their specifications and requirements in the said property to the respondent/plaintiff and that pursuant to the same, the respondent herein/plaintiff constructed the main factory building having a plinth area 2895 sq.ft. and a dry yard measuring 1853 sq.ft. and a dry yard measuring 1853 sq.ft. It is also an admitted fact that the front compound wall, toilet block and meter room were constructed, besides digging a borewell and providing a water tank as per the requirement of the appellants. It is also an admitted fact that the construction work commenced in the month of March 2001 and the same was completed in the month of October 2001 and that the building was handed over after completion of the entire construction work to the appellants/defendants in the month of October 2001, whereupon the opening function was conducted on 4.11.2001. It is also an admitted fact that the understanding between the parties was that, as the work would progress, periodical payments should be made on the bills that would be submitted by the respondent/plaintiff and that a total sum of Rs.15,75,000/- came to be paid by the appellants herein/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff towards the cost of construction. It is also an admitted fact that the above said amount was paid through seven cheques and no cash payment was made. 14. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the total construction cost including electrical wiring, plumbing and sanitary items of work amounted to Rs.21,04,119,27P and deducting the amount paid by the appellants/defendants, a balance amount of Rs.5,29,119.27P was left due. Though the appellants/defendants had not disputed the entrustment of the construction work to the respondent/plaintiff on the understanding that the respondent/plaintiff should be paid as per the bills submitted by them, a meek attempt came to be made by the appellants herein/defendants before the trial court to contend that, as there was no written agreement incorporating various conditions in detail, the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount claimed in the plaint from the appellants/defendants. In this regard, clear plea had been made by the respondent/plaintiff that the agreement was oral and as per the agreement, he took up the construction work in March 2001, completed the construction in October 2001 and handed over the building to the appellants/defendants. The mere fact that there was no agreement in writing incorporating detailed clauses will not be enough to show that there was no agreement at all between the appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff. 15. The appellants, as the owners of the land handed over the land to the respondent/plaintiff for constructing a factory building to the specifications and requirements of the appellants herein/defendants. 15. The appellants, as the owners of the land handed over the land to the respondent/plaintiff for constructing a factory building to the specifications and requirements of the appellants herein/defendants. It is not the case of the appellants/defendants that the respondent/plaintiff undertook the work of constructing the factory building gratuitously. Therefore it shall be obvious from the facts and circumstances of the case that though there was no written agreement, there was an oral agreement pursuant to which alone the respondent/plaintiff undertook the construction work for the appellants/defendants. As no lumpsum payment was agreed to between the parties, it could be inferred that the understanding between the parties was to make payment as per the bills to be submitted by the builder, namely the respondent herein/plaintiff. In this regard, clear averment has been made in the plaint by the respondent/plaintiff. On the other hand, the plea made in the written statement is quite evasive. Again PW1 gave a clear testimony that payments were made in installments through cheques according to the bills submitted by the respondent/plaintiff, as the construction work progressed and that when the entire construction work was completed, the total bill amount worked out to Rs.21,04,119.27P. Though the appellants/defendants would have made an attempt to contend that the said amount claimed to be the final bill amount was excessive and exorbitant by stating that the rate charged by the respondent/plaintiff per sq.ft. was much higher than the rate quoted by another contractor, the said contention was not substantiated by the appellants/defendants. 16. On the other hand various communications between the parties show that the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff was only reasonable and it was also admitted by the appellants/defendants. Exs.A1 to A4, A6, A7 and A9 to A12 show various payments made by the appellants/defndants by way of cheques alone. The payments thus made are shown in a tabular column as under: Date Cheque No. Bank Amount 19.03.2001 708234 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 19.03.2001 982604 ICICI Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 28.05.2001 982608 ICICI Bank Limited Rs. 2,00,000/- 28.06.2001 982616 ICICI Bank Limited Rs. 2,00,000/- 21.07.2001 982622 ICICI Bank Limited Rs. 3,00,000/- 18.08.2001 733881 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 2,00,000/- 27.08.2001 737513 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 06.09.2001 737539 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 18.09.2001 740001 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 25.09.2001 740015 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 2,00,000/- 28.06.2001 982616 ICICI Bank Limited Rs. 2,00,000/- 21.07.2001 982622 ICICI Bank Limited Rs. 3,00,000/- 18.08.2001 733881 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 2,00,000/- 27.08.2001 737513 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 06.09.2001 737539 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 18.09.2001 740001 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 25.09.2001 740015 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 1,00,000/- 29.10.2001 745769 South Indian Bank Limited Rs. 75,000/- The said documents would show that apart from making an initial payment of Rs.2,00,000/-by way of two cheques towards advance payment on 19.03.2001, various payments were made only through cheques up to 29.10.2001. Such payments were not made with any protest regarding the faulty execution of the construction. The last three payments, accounting for Rs.2,75,000/-were made after the respondent/plaintiff sent a letter under Ex.A8 informing the appellants/defendants that the estimated total value of the construction shall be Rs.21,65,000/-and till the date of the said letter, Rs.12.00 Lakhs had been paid and the balance amount needed would be Rs.9,65,000/-or Rs.10,00,000/-. With the said estimate, the respondent/plaintiff had requested the appellants/defendants to arrange for a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/-immediately to progress the work to its completion on time. The said letter came to be issued before the receipt of the cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with Ex.A7 letter dated 27.08.2001. That is the reason why the total amount paid upto the date of Ex.A8-letter was shown as Rs.12,00,000/- without taking into account Rs.1,00,000/- paid as per the cheque mentioned in Ex.A7 and three cheques for a total sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as found noted in Exs.A9 to A12 came to be issued. As per Ex.A8, the respondent/plaintiff had indicated that the estimated cost of the construction was Rs.21,65,000/-. Without a murmur and without any protest, further payments amounting to Rs.3,75,000/-came to be made. It is also an admitted fact that the construction work was completed in October 2001 and on 04.11.2001, the factory came to be opened. The advertisement given in the newspaper for the opening of the A.G. Exports puppets manufacturing factory has been produced as Ex.A13. After the inauguration, the payment particulars which are found noted in the above said tabular column has been furnished by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellants/defendants in its letter dated 28.12.2001, a copy of which is Ex.A14. The advertisement given in the newspaper for the opening of the A.G. Exports puppets manufacturing factory has been produced as Ex.A13. After the inauguration, the payment particulars which are found noted in the above said tabular column has been furnished by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellants/defendants in its letter dated 28.12.2001, a copy of which is Ex.A14. Thereafter, an abstract final bill for the main building has been drawn, which shows a total value of the construction of the main building to be Rs.18,94,190.27P including syntax tank fixing and water storage. The previous bill submitted by the plaintiff accounted for Rs.17.07,041.54. The additional amount covered by the said final bill is stated to be Rs.1,92,148.73P. The said bill was enclosed with the letter of the plaintiff dated 21.12.2001, a copy of which has been marked as Ex.A16. In addition, Ex.A5 letter dated 16.08.2001 had been sent claiming a sum of Rs.27,354/- towards sanitary bills. Though a note was appended to the letter that the said amount might be paid in cash, admittedly the said amount was not paid and no cash payment was made apart from the cheque payments indicated supra. Along with the final bill of the main building, abstract statement of the bills also has been produced as Ex.A17. As per the said bill, the total amount as per the final bill dated 21.12.2001 was Rs.21,04,119.27P. The following particulars are also found therein. 1. As per Final Bill Dated 21.12.2011 Rs. 18,99,190.27 2. Electrical Wiring Bill Dated 21.12.2001 Rs. 1,24,600.00 3. Plumbing and Bill dated 21.12.2001 Rs. 41,550.00 4. Sunday Items Bill No. 1 dated 16.08.2001 Rs. 27,354.00 5. Sunday Items Bill No. 2 dated 21.12.2001 Rs. 11,425.00 Total Rs. 21,04,119.27 Less : Payment Received Rs. 15,75,000.00 Total Rs. 5,29,119.27 or say Rs. 5,29,200.00 The second item, namely copy of electrical wiring bill noted in Ex.A17 has been produced as Ex.A18. Copy of the third item, namely the plumbing bill is Ex.A19 copy of the sundry bill No.2 show as item 4 in Ex.A17 is Ex.A20. The figures noted in Ex.A17 are corroborated by separate bills and the same have been discussed above. After receipt of Ex.A17, no amount was paid by the appellants/defendants. 17. Copy of the third item, namely the plumbing bill is Ex.A19 copy of the sundry bill No.2 show as item 4 in Ex.A17 is Ex.A20. The figures noted in Ex.A17 are corroborated by separate bills and the same have been discussed above. After receipt of Ex.A17, no amount was paid by the appellants/defendants. 17. After waiting for more than two years, a notice dated 05.02.2013 in writing was handed over to the first appellant/first defendant stating that periodical requests made by the respondent/plaintiff for settlement of the balance amount of Rs.5,29,200/- was being reminded and the appellants/defendants were requested to settle the amount so that the respondent/plaintiff could settle the amount due to the suppliers of the respondent/plaintiff. As the said letter evoked no response, a lawyer's notice came to be issued on 25.02.2003 to both the appellants. The notice was served on the first appellant, but the second appellant evaded service and the registered cover containing the notice came to be returned. Copy of the notice has been produced as Ex.A22. Acknowledgment evidencing service of the notice on the first appellant has been produced as Ex.A23. The returned cover addressed to the second appellant/second defendant has been produced as Ex.A24. 18. The oral testimony of PW1, coupled with the overwhelming documentary evidence, are more than sufficient to prove that the plaintiff undertook the construction work on the understanding that payment as per the bills raised by the respondent/plaintiff would be made by the appellants/defendants; that initial payments were made and after making payment of Rs.12,00,000/-, the appellants/defendants stopped payment and did not make further payment and that after defendants were informed that the total cost of construction of the main building and the sanitary works would be Rs.21,65,000/-, the appellants/defendants had paid only a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- without raising any protest regarding the amount quoted in the estimate taking the tally of payment to Rs.15,75,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.5,29,200/-. 19. Without questioning the correctness of the estimate, the appellants/defendants were requesting time for payment of the balance amount stating that they were expecting certain foreign bill payments. 19. Without questioning the correctness of the estimate, the appellants/defendants were requesting time for payment of the balance amount stating that they were expecting certain foreign bill payments. In Ex.P10-letter dated 18.09.2011, the following assurance was given: ‘we will settle the balance amount in due course as we are awaiting some foreign bill payments in near future.’ It shall be noticed that the said letter came to be issued after the receipt of Ex.A18 letter containing the estimate of the cost and the balance amount needed to be paid. Having accepted the bills and the estimate and having prayed time for payment of the balance amount on the premise that the defendants were expecting some foreign bill payments, the appellants/defendants cannot be heard to say that the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff was not correct or exorbitant. 20. In this regard, the defence stand sought to be taken by the appellants/defendants is two fold. The first one is that the rate claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is highly excessive and exorbitant. The second one is that there were defects in the execution of the construction work and inferior quality materials were used, which had brought down the goodwill of the appellants with their foreign buyers. So far as the first contention of the appellants/defendants as if the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is highly excessive and exorbitant is concerned, there is no reliable evidence to show that the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is exorbitant. In an attempt to show that a competitive builder was prepared to do it for a lesser amount than what was quoted by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/defendants have chosen to produce a copy of the quotation submitted by one "FSO Designs Private Limited" for the construction of a pickles factory building for the appellants/defendants and the same has been produced as Ex.B3. It is dated 28.07.2003. According to the appellants/defendants, the total project area was 5,730 sq.ft. and the total cost of project was Rs.26,57,366/-which works out at the rate of Rs.463.75P per sq.ft. There is no evidence to show that actually such a contract was entered into and the said work was undertaken and completed by the contractor for the said amount. The person, who submitted the quotation was also not examined. No qualified building surveyor or engineer was examined on the side of the defendants. 21. There is no evidence to show that actually such a contract was entered into and the said work was undertaken and completed by the contractor for the said amount. The person, who submitted the quotation was also not examined. No qualified building surveyor or engineer was examined on the side of the defendants. 21. In an attempt to show that there was a protest made by the appellants/defendants regarding the quality of construction and the amount claimed as construction cost, the appellants/defendants have chosen to produce Ex.B2 as a copy of a letter dated 25.10.2001 allegedly sent to the respondent/plaintiff. But there is no proof that such a letter was ever sent or served on the respondent/plaintiff. In fact, the last payment came to be made on 29.10.2001. Ex.B2 letter is dated 25.10.2001. Even assuming that such a letter could have been sent, subsequently payment was made and the opening of the factory was made on 04.11.2011 as evidenced by Ex.A3. Therefore, as rightly held by the court below, Ex.B2 could have been created for the purpse of the case to show as if a notice intimating the defective execution of the work was issued to the respondent/plaintiff calling upon the respondent/plaintiff to rectify the defects. 21. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the court below and his report has been marked as Ex.C1. The report of the Advocate-Commissioner includes photographs of the building and the abstract estimate prepared by one Sundararajulu, licensed Surveyor. According to his submission, the total cost would come to Rs.15,35,605/-alone. He has not added the electrical works, plumbing works and other sanitary works. Apart from that, the Building Surveyor was not examined as a witness before the court below. DW1, the sole witness examined on the side of the defendants has clearly admitted that the building surveyor did not accompany the Commissioner and he did not take measurements of the building. If the said aspect is taken into consideration, it will be obvious that the abstract estimate annexed to Ex.C1 is nothing but the outcome of a table work done by the building surveyor. The learned trial judge correctly declined to have any reliance on Ex.C1 for the purpose of deciding the questions: i) whether the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff as per the bills is excessive or exorbitant? ii) whether the construction was made using materials of inferior quality? The learned trial judge correctly declined to have any reliance on Ex.C1 for the purpose of deciding the questions: i) whether the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff as per the bills is excessive or exorbitant? ii) whether the construction was made using materials of inferior quality? And iii) whether there was any defect in execution of the work?. 22. On the other hand, the learned trial judge referred to various admissions made by DW1 in extenso and also pointed out the fact that even after the building was handed over and the factory was opened on 04.11.2001, no steps were taken by the appellants/defendants to proceed against the respondent/plaintiff, either for damages or for getting a direction against them to rectify the defects. The learned trial Judge also referred to the fact that from October 2001 till the issuance of Ex.A22-Notice, the appellants/defendants did not even issue any notice informing the respondent/plaintiff that there were defects in the construction or that the amount claimed as per the bill was excessive and they were not liable to pay such an amount. They simply kept quiet even after Ex.A21-letter came to be served directly on 05.02.2003. When a legal notice was sent through lawyer, the first appellant alone received it and the second appellant evaded receiving it as evidenced by Exs.A22 to A24. Even after receipt of the said notice, they did not issue any reply and they did not make payment as per the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff. That was the reason why the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the suit claiming the balance amount of construction cost with 24% interest. 23. In this regard, it shall be useful to point out the various admissions made by DW1. During his cross-examination he has clearly admitted that as and when bills were submitted by the plaintiff, he would scrutinise the bills and then make payments; that he submitted a final bill for a sum of Rs.21,04,119.27P as against which he had paid only a sum of Rs.15,75,000/-; that after deducting the payments made by him, the balance amount payable was Rs.5,29,119.27P and that the said amount was not paid till the date of his examination as a witness before the trial court. He has made a further admission that all the payments made by him were only through cheques; that after the submission of the final bill, the plaintiff pressurised for payment of the balance amount; that he informed the plaintiff that he was expecting certain foreign bill payments and on receipt of the same, he would settle the entire claim and that believing such assurance, the plaintiff continued the construction work and completed the same. The said admission itself shall be enough to negative the contention of the appellants/defendants that the respondent/plaintiff was making exorbitant claims. 24. DW1 has also made an admission that the construction agreement came into existence only after studying the building plan and on being satisfied after a discussion regarding the estimate and it was agreed that the construction work should be commenced on 01.03.2001 and should be completed by the end of October 2001. It is also his admission that during the course of construction he made periodical visits and checked the progress of the construction. It is also an admission made by DW1 that the completed building was handed over to them at the end of September 2001 and on 04.11.2001, the factory was opened. DW1 has clearly admitted that a claim was made under Ex.A21 and he received it acknowleding the same in the office copy. He would plead loss of memory as to whether any reply was sent for Ex.A21. There is also an admission by DW1 that in Ex.A21, the balance amount due to be paid by the appellants/defendants was stated to be Rs.5,29,200/- and that the said amount was not paid by him. It is also his admission that he received Ex.A22-Notice, but he did not send any reply. It is his further admission that till the filing of the suit, he did not issue any notice to the respondent/plaintiff that the quality of construction was inferior or that the respondent/plaintiff should give him compensation for the same. It is also his admission that till the date of his examination as DW1, no suit was filed by the defendants in this regard. It is also pertinent to note that no counter claim has been made in the present suit. It is also his admission that till the date of his examination as DW1, no suit was filed by the defendants in this regard. It is also pertinent to note that no counter claim has been made in the present suit. The learned trial judge, after analysing the evidence adduced on both sides, with a clear vision, rendered a finding that the respondent/plaintiff undertook the construction work based on the oral agreement under which the appellants/defendants agreed to make payment as per the bills raised by the respondent/plaintiff; that the construction of the factory building was made by the respondent/plaintiff as per the specifications and requirements of the appellants/defendants; that the total cost of the construction work undertaken by the respondent/plaintiff came to Rs.21,04,119.27P, out of which only a sum of Rs.15,75,000/- was paid and that a balance amount of Rs.5,29,119.27P was due from the appellants/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff. The learned trial judge also held that DW1 clearly admitted that the said amount was due from the appellants/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff. The learned trial Judge also held that the attempt made by the appellants/defendants to show that the bill amounts were overloaded and that the execution of the construction work was with defects using materials of inferior quality was not substantiated and that therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was bound to succeed in his suit filed for the recovery of Rs.5,29,200/- being the balance amount of construction cost with interest from the date of completion of the construction. 25. The above discussions will be enough to come to a conclusion that the points 1 and 2 for consideration are to be answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The finding of the court below that a sum of Rs.5,29,200/- was due from the appellants/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff towards the balance of the cost of construction of the factory premises of the appellants/defendants for their puppet factory cannot be said to be either infirm or defective liable to be interfered with by this court in exercise of its appellate power. On the other hand, the said finding of the trial court deserves confirmation. Point No.3 26. The suit has been filed for recovery of money. The principal amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is Rs.5,29,200/-. On the other hand, the said finding of the trial court deserves confirmation. Point No.3 26. The suit has been filed for recovery of money. The principal amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is Rs.5,29,200/-. In the discussion regarding Point Nos.1 and 2, we have held that the said amount was due from the appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to recover the said amount from the appellants/defendants. When an amount is claimed for the services rendered by the plaintiff, namely for the construction work undertaken by the respondent/plaintiff, from the date of completion of the work, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a reasonable interest on the principal amount due upto the date of filing of the suit. Though there is absence of contract for payment of interest, applying the provisions of the Interest Act, a reasonable interest can be allowed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had completed the construction and handed over the building to the appellants/defendants before the end of October 2001. The factory itself was opened on 04.11.2001. The amount due was admitted, but the defendants pleaded for some time to make payment, as they were expecting some foreign bill payments. Thereafter, for more than 1½ years, the appellants/defendants did not make any payment. Even the notices sent to them did not evoke any response. The respondent/plaintiff, having used their hard earned money and having purchased the materials from their suppliers on credit, shall be entitled to claim interest for the amount put by them from their pocket and to claim reimbursement of interest that may be charged by their suppliers. The prevailing market rate of interest can be assumed to be not less than the rate of bank interest. For various types of loans, various rate of interests are applied by the banks. During the relevant period, for Over Due credit facilities, the rate of interest charged by the banks was not less than 12%. Hence the award of 12% interest from the date of completion of the construction work till the date of filing of the suit cannot be found fault with. 27. The interest pendente lite and post decree interest are governed by Section 34 of the CPC. As per Section 34, interest may be awarded at a reasonable rate as the court deems fit. As stated supra, reasonable rate of pendente lite interest shall be 12% per annum in this case. 27. The interest pendente lite and post decree interest are governed by Section 34 of the CPC. As per Section 34, interest may be awarded at a reasonable rate as the court deems fit. As stated supra, reasonable rate of pendente lite interest shall be 12% per annum in this case. So far as post decree interest is concerned, the section provides that it shall not exceed 6% per annum. But the proviso provides an exemption to the said restriction allowing award of post decree interest more than 6%. According to the proviso, if the liability to pay the sum adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of post decree interest may exceed 6%, but shall not exceed contractual rate of interest or where there is no contract, the rate of interest shall not exceed the rate on which monies are lent or advanced by Nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. In relation to such commercial transactions during the relevant period, the Nationalised banks were charging not less than 12% interest. It cannot be denied that the liability to pay the principal amount claimed in the suit has arisen out of a commercial transaction, namely a construction contract. Therefore, this court does not find any defect or infirmity in the choice of the court below awarding post decree interest also at the rate of 12% per annum. 28. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error in awarding interest on the principal amount at 12% from 01.11.2001, namely the day after the completion of the construction work till the date of filing of the suit and pendente lite interest at the same rate from the date of plaint till the date of decree on the principal component of the claim and also the further interest at the same rate on the principal component of the claim from the date of decree till realisation. The learned trial judge also committed no error in awarding the cost against the appellants herein/defendants. The third point for determination is also answered against the appellants/defendants and in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 29. In view of the findings on points 1 to 3, this court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The third point for determination is also answered against the appellants/defendants and in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 29. In view of the findings on points 1 to 3, this court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the decree passed by the trial court dated 11.09.2007 made in O.S.No.2431 of 2003, is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with cost.