JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 24 of 2003 at the instance of the defendant /appellant. While moving the stay application filed by the appellant in connection with this appeal, we were invited by the learned advocate appearing for the parties to decide the appeal itself on merit as only the legality in the direction given by the learned Court below regarding payment of interest on the decretal amount is under challenge in this appeal. Accordingly, we have decided to consider the merit of this appeal on the basis of the papers available before us by dispensing with the requirement of filing of paper books in this appeal. Let us now consider as to whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned decree in the facts of the instant case. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant/appellant. There was no dispute between the parties, regarding the agreement entered into between the parties for sale of a plot of land near Durgapur bridge consisting of three cottahs of land by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent. Legality of the contract entered into between the parties is not disputed. There was no dispute with regard to the sale price of the suit property which the plaintiff agreed to pay to the defendant as a consideration for sale of the suit property to the plaintiff. There was also no dispute between the parties with regard to the satisfaction of the condition regarding the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract. Despite the leaned Trial Judge found that the agreement for sale entered into between the parties was lawful and the plaintiff has proved its readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract, but still then the learned Trial Judge requested to pass a decree for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff as the leaned Trial Judge found that the contract was frustrated due to supervening circumstances. The learned Trial Judge found that the entire land which was agreed to be transferred by the defendant to the plaintiff, was not available at the site due to wrongful encroachment of a part of such property by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation illegally encroached a part of the said property for the purpose of construction of Durgapur bridge therein. Since the entire area of land which the defendant agreed to transfer to the plaintiff in pursuance of the said agreement, was not available due to the encroachment of a part of the said property by the KMC the learned Trial Judge ultimately held that the contract entered between the parties was frustrated and as such, no decree for specific performance of contract can be given in such a suit. Under such circumstances, instead of giving a decree for specific performance of contract, the learned trial judge directed the defendant/appellant to refund the earnest money of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in two installments along with the interest at the prevailing bank interest thereon as per R.B.I Rules since 1988, to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment and decree. It was also provided in the decree that if the defendant fails to pay back the earnest money with interest thereon within two months from the date of decree, then the plaintiff will be at liberty to put the decree into execution and in that event the plaintiff will be entitled to post decree interest at the rate of 18% per annum over the decretal amount since the date of the decree till realisation of the decretal amount. The defendant/appellant is aggrieved by that part of the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge whereby the defendant was directed to pay interest on the said sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) at the prevailing bank interest thereon as per R.B.I Rules since 1988. Hence the instant appeal was filed. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant candidly conceded before this Court that his client is not aggrieved by that part of the direction of the learned Trial Judge by which the defendant was directed to pay back a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) to the plaintiff. Hence the instant appeal was filed. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant candidly conceded before this Court that his client is not aggrieved by that part of the direction of the learned Trial Judge by which the defendant was directed to pay back a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) to the plaintiff. In fact, receipt of the said sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) by way of earnest money from the plaintiff in two installments is also not denied by the defendant. Under such circumstances we will concentrate only on the legality of the remaining part of the decree whereby direction was given by the learned Trial Judge upon the defendant for payment of interest. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate, further submits that the rate of interest which is provided in the decree is too much exorbitant and the appellant’s liability to pay interest since 1988 is also not justified as the appellant was ready and willing to refund the said earnest money all throughout. Mr. Kar learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree. Considered the materials on record. Let us now consider as to whether the learned Trial Judge committed any illegality in directing the defendant/appellant to pay interest since 1988. Admittedly, the earnest money amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) was received by the defendant/appellant from the plaintiff/respondent in two installments and last of such installment was received by the defendant/appellant on 8th June, 1988. Thus, we find that the defendant/appellant utilised the plaintiff’s money amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) since 1988. In other words, the plaintiff/respondent was deprived of enjoying its money amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) right from the date when it deposited the said money with the defendant/ appellant by way of earnest money. As such we hold that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality by directing the defendant to pay interest on the said sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) from 1988. Let us now consider as to whether the rate of interest which was prescribed in the said decree is exorbitant or not. The learned Trial Judge directed the defendant to pay interest at the prevailing bank interest as per the R.B.I Rules. Let us now consider as to whether the rate of interest which was prescribed in the said decree is exorbitant or not. The learned Trial Judge directed the defendant to pay interest at the prevailing bank interest as per the R.B.I Rules. By investing some money even in the fixed deposit, a depositor cannot earn interest more than the interest which is prescribed by the bank on such fixed deposit, As such even by investing any amount of money in the fixed deposit, one cannot earn interest at the bank lending rate of interest as per the R.B.I Rules. As such we hold that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in directing the defendant/appellant to pay interest at the bank interest as per R.B.I Rules. We thus, modify that part of the impugned order by directing the defendant/appellant to pay simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the decretal amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) since 1988. Such payment should be made by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent within two months from date by way of deposit/transfer of the entire decretal amount together with interest in the following current account of the plaintiff/respondent:- Indian Overseas Bank, Branch: India Exchange Place Kol-700001, A/c No.001502000023191 (IFSC – IOBA 0000015). It is thus made clear that remaining part of the direction which was given by the learned Trial Judge for payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum over the decretal amount since the date of the decree till realisation of the decretal amount in case the decretal amount together with interest as mentioned above is not paid by the defendant/appellant within the period stipulated above, remains unaltered. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge which is impugned in this appeal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is, thus, allowed. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate of the parties to take note of the operative part of the judgment and decree for to communicating the same to their respective clients so that their respective clients can act upon such communication. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.