JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants are before this Court assailing the judgment dated 05.08.2015 passed in O.S.No.92/2013. Along with the appeal, an application in I.A.No.3/2016 is filed seeking to bring on record the additional documents sought to be produced by the appellants. The said application is considered along with the appeal in the course of this judgment. 2. The brief facts are that, the respondent herein who had undertaken construction work for the benefit of the appellants had filed the suit for recovery of Rs.19,62,370/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The case of the plaintiff was that, the construction work was entrusted to the plaintiff as per the Work Order No.36/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007. The construction work so entrusted was taken up and after completion of the work, the final bill for the amount of Rs.27,89,435/- was submitted. The plaintiff received the amount of Rs.12,06,301/- as part payment and since, the balance amount of Rs.15,83,134/- had not been paid, the suit was filed seeking recovery of the same, since the legal notice dated 27.12.2011 also did no yield any positive results in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The defendants namely, the appellants herein though represented, did not choose to file the written statement. The Court below, in that light had framed the following points for consideration: [1] Whether the plaintiff proves that he has completed the construction work entrusted to him by the defendants as per the schedule as alleged in the plaint? [2] Whether plaintiff further proves that the defendants are liable to pay the suit claim amount as alleged in the plaint? [3] Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from 15/07/2009 to 30/05/2013? [4] Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief? [5] What Order or Decree? 4. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon the documents at ExP-1 to ExP-10. The defendants namely, the appellants herein did not choose to adduce any evidence. It is in that background, the Court below, while answering the points raised for consideration has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff having undertaken the work is entitled to the payment of Rs.9,83,134/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The defendants have filed the instant appeal assailing the said judgment. 5. It is in that background, the Court below, while answering the points raised for consideration has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff having undertaken the work is entitled to the payment of Rs.9,83,134/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The defendants have filed the instant appeal assailing the said judgment. 5. As already taken note, the appellants have also filed I.A.No.3/2016 under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the outset, we have taken note of the reasons as indicated in the application and having taken into consideration the documents produced thereto since, they are in fact the admitted documents even as per the case of the plaintiff, the same are taken on record. From the additional documents, the document No.2 is the contract bearing No.36/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007 which in fact has been relied upon by the plaintiff in the suit. In that background, an examination of the consideration as made by the Court below is required to be taken note. 6. The Court below, while taking into consideration the evidence has also taken note of the contract entered into between the parties bearing No.36/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007. In that light, having referred to the documents at ExsP-1 and P-2 namely, the work order and the bill that had been submitted by the plaintiff, has arrived at the conclusion that the entire claim as put forth has not been paid. In that light, what is relevant to be taken note keeping in view the nature of contention put forth on behalf of the appellants is with regard to the additional work said to have been undertaken by the plaintiff, which according to the appellants herein was unauthorized and therefore, to that extent, the payment had not been made. 7. To examine this aspect, the Court below had relied upon the document at Ex-P-10 which was the reply notice that had been issued by the respondent. In that regard, what we also notice is that, even though there was no written statement filed in the suit, the reasons as put forth in the said reply notice would constitute the defense of the appellants herein. To that extent, the contention as put forth is that, the payment for the work undertaken was being made by the NABARD authorities and the funds would be released in that regard. To that extent, the contention as put forth is that, the payment for the work undertaken was being made by the NABARD authorities and the funds would be released in that regard. In that light, it is contended that, in respect of the additional work, the NABARD had not released the payments and therefore, the defendants are presently contending that the amount as claimed by the plaintiff is not payable. To that extent, as rightly concluded by the Court below, we, on re-appreciation of the evidence and the material on record, find that such contention cannot be put forth by the appellants herein. This is for the reason that the construction, in addition to the construction that was agreed under the contract bearing No.36/2007-08 was a continuation of the same and the construction was put up in the same site which in fact is not disputed. The only contention that is being put forth by the defendants is that the said construction was not with prior approval. 8. In that regard, as rightly concluded by the Court below, the said contention was taken only at the point of issuing reply notice through Ex-P-10 and no notice had been issued to the plaintiff at an earlier point when the construction was being put up and no direction had been issued to stop the construction. In such circumstance, when there is no dispute to the fact that the additional construction has been put up and the only contention is that such construction is put up without due approval, in the circumstance where the construction is for the benefit of the defendants and the same is being made use of, the payment as claimed cannot be denied and to that extent, the amount as concluded as payable by the Court below is required to be paid by the defendants. 9. However, the only contention which would merit consideration herein is with regard to the rate of interest as ordered by the Court below. As noticed, the claim as put forth was for payment of interest at 18% per annum but, the Court below has found it to be exorbitant and has granted interest at 15% per annum on the balance amount. There is no material on record to indicate the agreement between the parties with regard to the rate of interest, in the event of there being delayed payment. There is no material on record to indicate the agreement between the parties with regard to the rate of interest, in the event of there being delayed payment. In such circumstance, the appropriate course would be that, on taking note that the plaintiff is a contractor and to execute such contract work, the amount would be borrowed from the Bank, at best, the rate of interest as payable to the Bank should be granted. To that extent, we find that the interest awarded at 15% per annum is on the higher side. Hence, the decreetal amount is ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The modified decree to that extent be drawn. In terms thereof, the appeal stands disposed of with the modification to the extent as indicated herein above.