JUDGMENT : This appeal suit has been filed under Section 96 and order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’ for short] challenging the decree and judgment in O.S. No.295 of 1993 dated 29.06.1996 on the files of the Sub Court, Kattappana. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the above suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent 1 and 2. Though, notice issued to the 3 rd respondent has been signed, he did not appear. Perused the verdict under challenge. 3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred with reference to their status before the trial court. 4. Short facts: The plaintiff, who was a licensed contractor, executed an agreement with the 1 st defendant on 02.08.1983 for the work relating to improvements of Rajakkad- Ponmudi road. Due to some inconvenience, the work as agreed could not be executed by the plaintiff. At this juncture, alleging negligence on the part of the plaintiff in the matter of execution of the work, the 2 nd defendant terminated the contract as per Ext.B2(a) termination order dated 11.03.1988. Hence, the plaintiff sought the relief of declaring Ext.B2(a) termination order dated 11.03.1988 as illegal and also sought realization of total sum of Rs.3,53,750/- under various heads. 5. Defendants 1 and 2 jointly filed written statement and resisted the contentions raised by the plaintiff, justifying termination of agreement for valid reasons. The 3 rd defendant was set ex-parte. 6. The trial court, on appreciation of rival pleadings, raised necessary issues and tried the matter. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the defendants. 7. Finally, the trial court decreed the suit as under: 1. Ext.B2(a) termination order dated 11/3/88 is declared illegal and arbitrary and it is hereby set asided. 2. That the plaintiff is allowed to realise from the defendants 1 and 2 a sum of Rs.2,13,327/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. 3. and that the plaintiff is entitled to his costs in the suit. 8. 2. That the plaintiff is allowed to realise from the defendants 1 and 2 a sum of Rs.2,13,327/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. 3. and that the plaintiff is entitled to his costs in the suit. 8. Now, the grievance of the plaintiff is non payment of interest from the date of termination of the agreement as on 11.03.1988 till the date of filing of the suit. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, since Ext.B2(a) termination order dated 11.03.1988 was declared as illegal, the plaintiff is legally entitled to reasonable interest in between the period from 11.03.1988 onwards and the trial court disallowed interest for the said period, without any justifiable reasons. Therefore, the verdict impugned requires interference. 9. Resisting this contention, the learned Government Pleader argued that, in this matter, the trial court granted decree to the tune of Rs.2,13,327/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization, on the finding that the contention raised by the plaintiff that he had paid 15% interest for the said sum borrowed from the State Bank of Travancore, Muvattupuzha Branch. The said fact could not be justified, since as per Ext.A9, the plaintiff had discharged the liability with the State Bank of Travancore, Muvattupuzha Branch, by paying Rs.1,82,864.50 towards the interest. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that, on filing execution proceedings, the entire amount as per the decree granted by the trial court has been deposited by the defendants. Therefore, the verdict under challenge would not require any interference. 10. Addressing the rival arguments, points arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the trial court went wrong in disallowing interest in between the period from 11.03.1988 till the date of filing of the suit on 23.01.1992? 2. Whether the verdict of the trial court would require interference? 3. Reliefs and costs. 11. Before discussing the merits of the case, it is necessary to have a glance on the date of the suit and the date of this appeal. The suit was originally filed on 21.03.1992 and the same was decreed by the trial court on 29.06.1996. This appeal has been filed on 27.08.1998. 3. Reliefs and costs. 11. Before discussing the merits of the case, it is necessary to have a glance on the date of the suit and the date of this appeal. The suit was originally filed on 21.03.1992 and the same was decreed by the trial court on 29.06.1996. This appeal has been filed on 27.08.1998. Therefore, this appeal kept pending till today (18.03.2025) i.e. for 27 years, even though the short question involved is, whether denial of interest to the appellant for a short period is right or wrong. Anyhow, the long pendency of this appeal is a matter of serious concern, when considering the principle that delayed justice is denial of justice. 12. In this matter, in view of deposit of the amount covered by the decree under challenge, the defendants have no contention that verdict of the trial court, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to realize Rs.2,13,327/- from defendants 1 and 2, with interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of the suit till realization is unsustainable. In paragraph No.39, while answering issue No.11, the reliefs and cost, it has been observed by the learned Sub Judge that, it is established that the total bill amount due to the plaintiff was Rs.4,30,283/- and he has already received an amount of Rs. 2,45,970/- out of the said amount, and the balance amount due to him towards the cost of work executed by him is Rs.1,84,313/-. Out of the said amount of Rs.1,84,313/- a sun of Rs.68,586/- is liable to be deducted towards the cost of materials supplied by the department for the execution of the work. So the net amount payable to the plaintiff towards the cost of work after deducting all recoveries claimed by the defendants is worked out at Rs.1,15,727/-. The plaintiff is also entitled to get an amount of Rs37,500/- towards damages under other heads mentioned above and to realise the security deposit of Rs.60,100/-. So the total amount due to the plaintiff from the defendant is Rs.2,13,327/-. The plaintiff claimed that he was paying 15% interest with quarterly rests for the amount borrowed from the State Bank of Travancore for the purpose of the work. He claimed 15% interest on the amount due to him from 11/3/1988 onwards. So the total amount due to the plaintiff from the defendant is Rs.2,13,327/-. The plaintiff claimed that he was paying 15% interest with quarterly rests for the amount borrowed from the State Bank of Travancore for the purpose of the work. He claimed 15% interest on the amount due to him from 11/3/1988 onwards. It is evident as per Ext-A9 that the plaintiff has discharged the liability with the State Bank of Travancore by paying a sum of Rs.1,82,064.50 towards the interest. In the circumstance, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to get interest at 12% per annum on the amount due to him. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that the termination of the contract as per Ext B2(a) dated, 11/3/1988 is illegal and arbitrary and is only to be set aside and the plaintiff is entitled to realise from the defendants 1 and 2 an amount of Rs.2,13,327/- with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation with costs. Issue found accordingly. 13. The said finding of the trial court is not under challenge in this appeal as already observed. Here, whether the claim of the plaintiff to get interest from 11.03.1988 till 21.03.1992 (the date of filing of the suit) is the question to be considered. 14. As per Section 34 of CPC, it has been provided that, 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 the 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 per cent 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. 15. Therefore, the Court has discretion to order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, when the decree is for payment of money. 16. 15. Therefore, the Court has discretion to order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, when the decree is for payment of money. 16. Scanning the reasons stated by the learned Sub Judge, while denying the interest to the plaintiff for the period from 11.03.1988 till 21.03.1992, the same appears to be a strange stand. The learned Sub Judge observed that, in the case put up by the plaintiff it has been stated that he had availed a loan from the State Bank of Travancore, Muvattupuzha Branch, for the purpose of the work. But, the claim of 15% interest by the plaintiff could not be considered, since he had discharged the said liability with the Bank. In fact, when some amount due to a party in a suit for money is adjudged and quantified, Section 34 of CPC provides grant of interest, though the same is the discretion of the Court. In money matters, the value of the money will be decreased by passage of time. Therefore, grant of reasonable interest to compensate the diminution in value is, in fact, intended by Section 34 of the CPC. In such cases, Courts have to invariably exercise the discretion in the interest of justice, unless for valid reason such exercise is found not necessary. 17. In the instant case, the trial court granted Rs.2,13,327/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization, though the claim was for Rs.3,53,750/-. In fact, the trial court ought to have granted interest at the same rate from the date of the termination order till the date of filing of the suit also, to meet the ends of justice, in a case involving contractual liability, for the money found to be spent by the plaintiff from his earnings. 18. In view of the above, the finding of the trial court negating the interest to the plaintiff for the period from 11.03.1988 till 21.03.1992 is liable to be interfered. Holding so, this appeal is liable to be allowed. 19. 18. In view of the above, the finding of the trial court negating the interest to the plaintiff for the period from 11.03.1988 till 21.03.1992 is liable to be interfered. Holding so, this appeal is liable to be allowed. 19. In the result, this appeal stands allowed and the verdict impugned is interfered and modified by granting interest @ 12% per annum for Rs.2,13,372/- from 11.03.1988 (the date of the termination order) till 21.03.1992 (the date of filing of the suit) also, while confirming grant of interest by the trial court from the date of the suit till realization. 20. Having considered the facts of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to cost of this appeal also to be realized from defendants 1 and 2. All interlocutory applications pending in this regular first appeal stand dismissed.