JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral):- The defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery has been decreed for the amount of Rs. 2,88,957/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing till its realisation. 2. In brief, the plaintiff firm is doing the business of commission agency, where the defendant used to sell his crop. The plaintiff advanced Rs.70,793.96 on 5.11.1999 and also settled the total amount due from him of Rs.2,65,000/- on 5.11.1999 which was signed by the defendant in his bahi entry in English and promised to repay the total amount in Rabi crop, 2000. After settling the amount, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1770/- on 1.12.1999; Rs.1080/- on 17.12.1999, Rs.8120/- on 21.12.1999 and Rs..2000/-each on 07.1.2000 and 19.2.2000 after signing all the entries in the bahi. Thus, a total outstanding amount against the defendant was Rs.2,80,970/- but the defendant did not sell his rabi crop of the year 2000 as well as kharif crop of the same year to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested him to clear his dues, but despite making promise, the defendant did not turn up to make the payment. 3. In the written statement, stand taken by the defendant is that he never borrowed any money from the plaintiff nor sold his agricultural produce to the plaintiff’s commission agency. He challenged the entries as forged and fabricated. 4. After issues were framed, the plaintiff-firm examined Mohan Lal as PW-1, Sumer Singh as PW-2 and Ram Nath as PW-3 and tendered into evidence documents Exs. P-1 to P-49, whereas the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and Gurcharan Singh as DW-2 and also tendered into evidence receipt Ex.D1 and copy of statement mark A. 5. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff entitling him to recover a sum of Rs.4,35,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing till its realisation. 6. However, in appeal, the decree of the trial Court was modified and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs.2,88,957/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing till its realisation. 7. 6. However, in appeal, the decree of the trial Court was modified and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs.2,88,957/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing till its realisation. 7. The only argument raised by counsel for the appellant is that the interest charged by the plaintiff @ 18% per annum is excessive and submitted that it could not have been charged more than 6% per annum in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. 8. I have heard counsel for the appellant and after examining the record, am of the considered opinion that the argument raised by counsel for the appellant is without any basis because Section 34 of CPC does not deal with the circumstance for interest prior to the suit, which is generally regulated by the contract. The plaintiff has been awarded interest on the principal amount i.e. Rs.1,9,453/- on which @ 18% per annum interest is calculated from 19.2.2002 to 31.10.2002 i.e. from the due date till the suit was filed which comes to Rs. 94,504/-, which has been principally challenged before this Court. 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal as no question of law much less substantial is involved. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed. ----------------