JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Presiding Officer/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P., whereby he affirmed the rendition of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. Defendant Dev Raj Sharma standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions against him of both the learned Courts below concerts through the instant appeal constituted before this Court to reverse the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that plaintiff company is a private limited concern incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with Registrar of Companies and carries on business of leasing, hire purchase, housing, general finance and investment and Shri Gian Nath Lakhanpal is the Managing Director of the plaintiff company duly authorized person to file and pursue the present suit. It is alleged that defendant No.1 applied for incorporating the entry qua agreement for hire purchase/hypothecation of vehicle HPM-289 to the Registering Authority Barsar in favour of the plaintiff company and the plaintiff company advanced a sum of Rs.18,000/- to the defendant No.1 and the defendant undertook to pay interest @ 22% per annum with quarterly rests and to liquidate the total liability of Rs.25,920/- within two years. It is further pleaded that the defendants No. 2 and 3 stood guarantors to the liability of defendant No.1 and thereafter defendant No.1 paid only two instalments of Rs.1100/- and thereafter failed to liquidate the liability despite requests. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs was resisted by defendant- 1 and defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 has admitted the agreement of hire purchase and hypothecation of vehicle HPM-289 and competency of the Managing Director to file and pursue the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. The defendant No.1 has further admitted the advance of Rs.18,000/- taken from the plaintiff company but the defendant No.1 has denied the rate of interest as pleaded and claimed by the plaintiff including the liquidation of liability. The defendant No.1 has further pleaded and claimed that the plaintiff company had taken forcible possession of vehicle HPM-289 from Nand Kishore and thereafter auctioned the same as this vehicle was valued about Rs.1,07,000/- and thereby the defendant has pleaded and claimed that the plaintiff company is liable to pay or adjust the value of the vehicle against the loan amount. The defendant No.3 has taken the preliminary objections qua cause of action, estoppel and on merits the defendant No.3 has denied the competency of the Managing Director to file and pursue with the suit and has further denied any dealings between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The defendant No.3 has also pleaded that the rate of interest claimed to be very high and arbitrary and thereby has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff the averments as contained in the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement contrary to the plaint were refuted. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.34,356/- as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his act and conduct? OPD. 3(A). Whether the plaintiff had snatched the financed bus HPM-289 and sold the same. If so, its effect? OPD. 4. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff besides the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred there from before it by defendant Dev Raj. 7. Now the defendant Dev Raj has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 27.03.2006, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is result of misreading, mis-appreciation of Ext. D-1 and DW-4/A? 2. Whether the learned First Appellate Court went wrong in not discussing the entire oral and documentary evidence? 3. Whether the interest allowed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court is against the provisions of Interest Act and the Contract Act as well as Code of Civil Procedure? Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3. 8. The factum of the defendant/appellant herein borrowing a loan of Rs.18,000/- from the plaintiff company stands admitted by defendant/appellant herein in his pleadings constituted in his written statement instituted to the plaint. Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3. 8. The factum of the defendant/appellant herein borrowing a loan of Rs.18,000/- from the plaintiff company stands admitted by defendant/appellant herein in his pleadings constituted in his written statement instituted to the plaint. Since admissions in pleadings estop the defendant/appellant herein to contest the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein, as a corollary thereof, the concurrently recorded renditions of both the Courts below qua hence the defendant/appellant herein accepting qua a sum of Rs.18,000/- with costs and future interest @ 22% per annum, standing borrowed by him from the plaintiff not meriting any interference. However, since only a part of the loan borrowed by the defendant/appellant herein from the plaintiff stood uncontrovertedly liquidated by him, he is rendered liable to pay the residue to the plaintiff/respondent herein. However, the defendant No.1 contests the right of the plaintiff to claim its repayment from him with interest leviable thereon @ 22% per annum with quarterly rests. The levy of interest @ 22% per annum with quarterly rests on the loan amount borrowed by the defendant appellant herein from the plaintiff respondent herein stands manifested in Ext.P-3 which constitutes the apposite loan agreement executed inter se the defendant/appellant herein and the respondent herein/plaintiff. However, the learned counsel for the defendant/ appellant herein contends of yet the aforesaid rate of interest as levied upon the loan amount taken by the defendant from the plaintiff under Ext.P-3, execution whereof by the defendant stands uncontested by him being exorbitant/excessive besides beyond the ambit of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “34. Interest (1) where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money the Court may in the decree order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit (with further interest at such rate not exceeding six percent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum), from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six percent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.” Sub-Section (1) mandates of, in a suit for recovery of money, the Court concerned standing barred to on the decretal sum of money impose interest which is excessive/ unreasonable or arbitrary rather its holding empowerment to impose interest on the decretal sum of money which is reasonable, whereas the concurrently recorded decrees of both the Courts below while accepting the rate of interest manifested in Ext.P-3 being the one leviable on the sum borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff have thereupon purportedly imposed upon the decretal sum of money a manifestly unreasonable besides an exorbitant rate of interest which hence infracts the mandate of sub section 1 of Section 34. However, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the defendant would hold vigour only when the sum claimed to be recovered by the plaintiff from the defendant arises not from a commercial transaction also when the rate of interest leviable on the sum of money lent by the plaintiff to the defendant stands not embodied in the relevant contract or agreement recorded inter se both. However, when evidently their occurs a display in the relevant document executed inter se the plaintiff and the defendant qua the rate of interest leviable on the sum loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant, it was incumbent upon the Court to in concurrence with the rate of interest embodied in the relevant contract impose interest on the decretal amount. However, when evidently their occurs a display in the relevant document executed inter se the plaintiff and the defendant qua the rate of interest leviable on the sum loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant, it was incumbent upon the Court to in concurrence with the rate of interest embodied in the relevant contract impose interest on the decretal amount. Since apparently the plaintiff advanced a loan to the defendant for a commercial purpose constituted in the factum of the defendant borrowing the relevant sum of money for purchasing a bus No. HPM-289 for plying it for commercial purpose rendered the loan borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff to be for a or arise out of a commercial transaction also when the rate of interest leviable on the amount borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff stood embodied in the relevant contract recorded inter se the plaintiff and the defendant, in sequel with the proviso to Section 34 of the CPC hence standing attracted proviso whereof enjoins Courts of law qua loans advanced for or arising out of commercial transaction, as is the relevant transaction inter se the plaintiff and the defendant besides when the rate of interest chargeable/leviable thereon stands recited in the apposite agreement, to hence revere the rate of interest embodied in the relevant contract executed inter se the plaintiff and the defendant. Consequently with Ext.-3, the relevant loan agreement recorded inter se the plaintiff and the defendant reciting the rate of interest leviable on the sum of money loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant warranted reverence standing meted thereto by both the Courts below. Consequently, both the Courts below in levying on the loan amount borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff an interest @ 22% per annum cannot be said to have levied it beyond the ambit of the relevant agreement recorded inter se the parties. In sequel, the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant while standing anvilled merely on sub-section (1) of Section 34 whereas his remaining oblivious to its proviso, proviso thereof when is in conformity with besides for reasons aforesaid stands attracted to the factual matrix hereat, it has to suffer the illfate of its standing discountenanced by this Court. In sequel, the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant while standing anvilled merely on sub-section (1) of Section 34 whereas his remaining oblivious to its proviso, proviso thereof when is in conformity with besides for reasons aforesaid stands attracted to the factual matrix hereat, it has to suffer the illfate of its standing discountenanced by this Court. It is hence held that the levying of or imposing of interest by both the Courts below @ 22% per annum on the decreetal sum cannot be amenable to its suffering from any infirmity. 9. Both the Courts below dispelled the espousal of the defendant vehicle standing forciblly taken away by the official of the company and on user whereof profits standing purportedly derived from its apposite user by the plaintiff company standing not appropriated by it to settle the loan, barred the plaintiff to claim the suit money from the defendant. However, the dispelling by both the Courts below of the aforesaid espousal of the defendant stands anvilled upon DW-1 communicating in his examination in chief of his selling bus No.HPM-289 to one Nand Kishore for a consideration of Rs.1,07,000/- under an agreement recorded by him with the former. Reliance by both the Courts below upon the aforesaid communication made by DW-1 in his examination in chief per se is neither inapt nor is interferable, as prominently with the defendant uncontrovertedly alienating the relevant bus to one Nand Kishore for a sale consideration of Rs.1,07,000/- obviously then with the plaintiff company never holding its possession nor hence it ever plying for commercial purpose where from it hence never derived profits there from it cannot be concluded of its omission to appropriate a part of the profits reared by its plying the relevant bus for commercial purpose estoping it to claim from the defendant, the sum of loan advanced by it to the former. Also, as a corollary, the impact of any recital in Ext.DW-4/A holds no efficacy, contrarily with the defendant No.1 receiving the sale consideration from Nand Kishore on his alienating the relevant bus to him rather enjoined the defendant No.1 to repay the plaintiff the sum of loan as borrowed by him from it, his omitting to do so renders his accounts with the plaintiff remaining unsettled. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff merited its standing decreed as aptly done by both the Courts below. 11. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff merited its standing decreed as aptly done by both the Courts below. 11. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal preferred by the defendant/ appellant herein is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against him. The judgments and decrees rendered by the both the Courts below are maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith.