JUDGMENT : 1. This is defendants' regular first appeal against the judgment and decree passed decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs. 15,45,000/- with interest at the rale of 18% p.a. on the said amount from the date of suit till the date of realisation of the entire amount. 2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The plaintiff Mr. Vijay Kumar contends that the defendant had proposed to build an Internet Data Centre 4 to be located at White Field, Bangalore. Before undertaking the said construction the defendant required pre-construction permissions from various authorities and they had entrusted the said work to the plaintiff as per work order dated 26-4-2008. In terms of the work order he obtained permission from the authorities and raised invoices on various dates totally amounting to Rs. 27,10,000/- but the said amount was not paid. He issued legal notice to the defendants which was duly served. There was no reply nor the demand was complied with. Therefore, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 347/ 2012 claiming a sum of Rs. 27,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. 4. After service of summons the defendants entered appearance, filed their written statement contesting the claim. The defendants admitted having entrusted the work to the plaintiff as per the work order dated 26-4-2008 they denied that the plaintiff had raised invoices for a sum of Rs. 27,10,000/-. They also admitted receipt of legal notice dated 9-11-2011. However, they did not admit the liability. On the aforesaid grounds they sought for dismissal of the suit and also on the ground of limitation. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has issued work order dated 26-4-2008 to him for obtaining the pre-construction permission/NOC from the concerned authorities totally amounting to Rs. 30,97,530/-? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that as per the work order the defendant has failed to make the payments after receipt of invoices dated 5-11-2008, 26-11-2008, 21-5-2009 and 21-5-2009 (sic)? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is due of Rs. 28,07,560/- as on the date of suit? 4. Whether there is cause of action for filing the suit? 5. Whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is proper? 6. 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is due of Rs. 28,07,560/- as on the date of suit? 4. Whether there is cause of action for filing the suit? 5. Whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is proper? 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for? 8. What order or decree?" 6. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim examined himself as RW. 1 and produced 17 documents which are marked as Exs. P1 to P17. On behalf of the defendant one Pareekshit Raja Bhat was examined as D. W. 1. However, no documents were produced. 7. The Trial Court on consideration of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, taking note of the admission of the plaintiff held that Exs. P3 and P5 invoices are issued in respect of the same transaction and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to double payment, but it held in all, plaintiff would be entitled to Rs. 15,45,000/- against the claim of Rs. 27,10,000/-. Thereafter it held that as there was no contract between the parties to pay the said amount, plaintiff is not entitled to any interest prior to the date of the suit. However, it awarded interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court the defendant has preferred this appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and decree contends the invoices on which the plaintiff relies are not issued to the defendants at all and therefore liability could not be foisted on the defendants on the basis of the said invoices. He further submitted that award of interest at 18% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation is without any basis and therefore, it also requires to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree. 10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are :- 1. Whether the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 15,45,000/-? 2. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree. 10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are :- 1. Whether the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 15,45,000/-? 2. Whether the trial Court was justified in awarding interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization? Re : Point No. 1: 11. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court the contract between the parties is not in dispute. Defendant in the written statement has in categorical terms admitted the issue of a work order dated 26-4-2008 to secure construction permissions/NOC from the various authorities concerned totally amounting to Rs. 27,10,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the said work order entrusted to the plaintiff has been performed by the plaintiff. However, while raising invoides for payment instead of raising the invoices in the name of the defendants, he has raised the invoices in the name of M/s. Reliance Infocomm Engineering Private Limited. The said work order contains a rider (clause) that such order is governed by the Agreement between M/s. Vijayakumar and Reliance ADA Group, Mumbai. It is not the case of the defendants that the company in whose name the invoices are raised is in no way related to the defendant. That apart when the plaintiff issued notice, on the basis of the said notice, though legal notice was duly served no reply was given. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence on record rightly held that the defendant is liable to pay the amounts mentioned in the said invoices. However, it has reduced the amount claimed on the ground that the claim includes the amount mentioned in two invoices which are one and the same. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to interfere with the said finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, we answer point No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff. Re : Point No. 2 : 12. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest prior to the date of the suit because there is no agreement between the parties. Accordingly, we answer point No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff. Re : Point No. 2 : 12. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest prior to the date of the suit because there is no agreement between the parties. If there was no agreement between the parties prior to the said date the award of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation is also improper. In the circumstances of this case, award of interest at 18% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation is on the higher side and proper course would be to reduce the interest to 9% which would meet the ends of justice, to that extent the judgment and decree of the trial Court is modified. 13. Accordingly we pass the following order :- a. The appeal is partly allowed. b. The impugned judgment anti decree of the Trial Court is modified only in respect of award of interest i.e. instead of 18% it is reduced to 9% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment. c. In all other respects the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court stands confirmed. Order accordingly.