JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short “the C.P.C.”] is filed by the Appellants challenging the decree and judgment, dated 17.12.2004 in O.S. No. 7 of 2001 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur [for short “the trial Court”]. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and Respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 7 of 2001. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,85,371/- payable by the defendants/Government for the security deposit amount of Rs.1,85,317/- already deducted by the 3rd defendant in final bill on 10.10.2000 and Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid for the additional work completed by the plaintiff, Rs.50,000/- towards earnest money deposit deposited on 28.04.1997 and Rs.50,000/- deposited by the defendant in package No. 3 B.T. Road from Parumanchala to Tudicherla with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and with costs. 4. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 5. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 7 of 2001, are as under: The plaintiff is a registered contractor. He was awarded execution of work that is providing B.T. Road from Parumanchala to Tudicherla under agreement No. 11/96-97, dated 28.04.1997. As per terms of the contract, the plaintiff has to complete the work by 04.04.1998 and he has completed the work under the above agreement by 16.03.1998. The plaintiff further contended that while execution of work under the above agreement is going on, the 3rd defendant addressed a letter to 2nd defendant stating that additional work of the widening the road was also taken up and completed as per the guidelines of NABARD through the letter No. AE-2 NABARD/98, dated 28.08.1998 and excess amount of the additional work which was spent by the plaintiff was not yet paid even after completion of check measurement and finalization of bill. With regard to the above said works there was a correspondence between the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and from it, it is clear that the plaintiff completed the work by August, 1998 as per the terms and conditions of the original agreement. The maintenance period was also ended by 03.04.1999. With regard to the above said works there was a correspondence between the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and from it, it is clear that the plaintiff completed the work by August, 1998 as per the terms and conditions of the original agreement. The maintenance period was also ended by 03.04.1999. So, the final bill was pending and as already the execution of work was also completed prior to the supplemental agreement. The plaintiff further contended that towards the agreement, dated 28.04.1997, the defendants 2 and 3 deducted F.S.D. in the final bill to an extent of Rs.1,85,371/- on 10.10.2000 and he has to get Rs.1,00,000/- towards balance payment of additional work and also earnest money deposit of Rs.50,000/-deposited by him at the time of agreement. Without issuing notice to the plaintiff, the defendants 2 and 3 deducted Rs.50,000/- in September, 2000 in other work i.e. package No. 3 B.T. Road from Velgodu to Guntakandala and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the bills to be paid to the plaintiff in the agreement No. 11/96-97. After knowing the above said deductions, the plaintiff approached the defendants 2 and 3 about the deductions made by them, but they failed to do so. Hence the suit. 6. The 3rd defendant filed written statement which was adopted by the defendants 1, 2 and 4 by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: The plaintiff originally entered into agreement with the Department for executing a work of estimate amount of Rs.20,00,000/- but he executed work of estimated amount of Rs.20,99,996/-. This revision was approved by the competent authority as per departmental rules i.e. the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Ananthapur, Camp Office at Kurnool. Regarding the excess amount, the plaintiff entered into a supplemental agreement with the Department on 27.09.2000, the completion of work time gap occurred because excess work was executed beyond original agreement provision. For the additional amount of work executed, revised administrative sanction had to be sought from the Government, then only revised estimate will be prepared and sanction has to be obtained by competent authority i.e. Superintendent Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Ananthapur, Camp Office at Kurnool. The plaintiff had executed a supplemental agreement with the department on 27.09.2000. The final bill has to be prepared according to the supplemental agreement as well as the original agreement. The plaintiff had executed a supplemental agreement with the department on 27.09.2000. The final bill has to be prepared according to the supplemental agreement as well as the original agreement. The plaintiff is responsible for deficiencies found on inspections on that date. The department had right to recover the amount from other bills of work done by plaintiff and the action taken by the department is correct. Government is entitled to retain or deduct the amount there of from any money that may be due or may became due to the contractor under these present contracts or under any other contract or contracts or any other accounts whatsoever. The quality control wing inspected the work executed by the plaintiff is substandard and submitted report on 30.04.1999 for recovery of Rs.4,51,929/- and plaintiff had knowledge the same and that on the directions given by the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant recovered the amount from the bill, for his deficiency work. The report of inspection of quality control wing was executed by Panchayat Raj, Kunool and Deputy Executive Engineer, Nandikotkur, in the 1st fortnight of January, 2000. As the work executed by the plaintiff is defective and the action of the department in affecting the recovery from the amount payable to the plaintiff from the work of the agreement No. 11/96-97 and also from the package No. 3 work and other works executed by the plaintiff is not illegal or arbitrary. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for suit amount. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the G.O.Ms. No. 195, dated 10.05.1999 is binding on the plaintiff? (2) Whether the contract work done by the plaintiff is substandard and liable to pay Rs.4,51,929/- to the Government, as per report of quality control wing, dated 13.04.1999? (3) Whether the plaintiff has completed the contract work within time? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Government? (5) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, DW-1 to DW-3 were examined and Ex.B1 and B8 were marked. 9. (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Government? (5) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, DW-1 to DW-3 were examined and Ex.B1 and B8 were marked. 9. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment, dated 17.12.2004, against which the present appeal is preferred by the defendants in the suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 10. Heard the learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for appellants and heard Sri M. Viyadithya Reddy, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Smt. I. Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the respondent. 11. Learned Government Pleader for appeals would contend that the decree and judgment under question is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the weight of evidence on record and it is unsustainable. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit as the respondent/plaintiff failed to establish his case. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the trial Court ought to have followed the principles of law and the weakness of the defendant cannot be a ground to success in favour of the plaintiff. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the trial Court came to a wrong conclusion and decreed the suit and the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge and the appeal may be dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 13. Now the point for determination is: Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff? 14. Point: The undisputed facts are the plaintiff is a registered contractor and he entered into a contract with the defendants and he was entrusted execution of work that is providing B.T. Road from Parumanchala to Tudicherla under agreement No. 11/96-97, dated 28.04.1997. 14. Point: The undisputed facts are the plaintiff is a registered contractor and he entered into a contract with the defendants and he was entrusted execution of work that is providing B.T. Road from Parumanchala to Tudicherla under agreement No. 11/96-97, dated 28.04.1997. As per terms of the contract, the plaintiff has to complete the work by 04.04.1998 and he has successfully completed the total contract work by 16.03.1998. The plaintiff further pleaded that while execution of the work under the aforesaid agreement, the 3rd defendant i.e. the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Kurnool, addressed a letter to the 2nd defendant by informing that additional work of widening the road was also taken up and completed as per the guidelines of NABARD and that excess amount of additional work which was spent by the plaintiff under Ex.B.2 additional agreement. He further pleaded that though he completed the work under additional work, amount is not released by the Government. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff attended the said work and the defendants also admitted as per the additional work under Ex.B.2 by the plaintiff, Rs.1,00,000/- is not at all paid by the defendants. 15. In the written statement itself, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff originally entered into agreement with the Department for executing a work of estimate amount of Rs.20,00,000/- but he executed work of estimated amount of Rs.20,99,996/-. They also admit that the revision was approved by the competent authority as per departmental rules i.e. the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Ananthapur, Camp Office at Kurnool. The aforesaid admissions of the defendants in the written statement is also clear that the plaintiff attended the work to a tune of Rs.21,00,000/- under Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2. It is not the case of the defendants that they paid Rs.1,00,000/- amount to the plaintiff/contractor for the work attended by the plaintiff/contractor under Ex.B.2 additional agreement. In view of the aforesaid admission of the defendants, it is also clear that the plaintiff executed the work for Rs.20,00,000/- under Ex.B.1 and also executed additional work for Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.B.2 supplemental agreement and the same was proved by the plaintiff. 16. It is not the specific case of the defendants that they paid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards additional work attended by the plaintiff under Ex.B.2. 16. It is not the specific case of the defendants that they paid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards additional work attended by the plaintiff under Ex.B.2. It is not the case of the defendants that they sanctioned and cleared aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards additional work attended by the plaintiff as per supplemental agreement under Ex.B.2. It is not in dispute that the defendants have not paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- It is not in dispute that the defendants withheld the security deposit amount of Rs.1,85,317/- Rs.50,000/- towards the earnest money deposit deposited by the plaintiff and Rs.50,000/- deposited by the defendants towards package No. 3 B.T. Road from Velgodu to Guntakandala village and the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,85,371/- was withheld by the defendants. 17. The case of the plaintiff is that he has to complete the work within one year of allotment of contract work by the defendants. DW-3 admits that the work has to be completed by 16.03.1998. Admittedly, as per the own admissions of DW-3, the plaintiff commenced the work on 16.06.1997 and completed the total work by 14.03.1998 and the same is proved by DW-3 through Ex.B.6. Therefore, the plaintiff had completed the work by 14.03.1998 within a stipulated time. The evidence of DW-3 goes to show about the allotment of work to the plaintiff under Ex.B.1 and also work attended by the plaintiff as per Ex.B.2 supplemental agreement. It is not in dispute that the work under Ex.B.2 is attended by the plaintiff but the amount was not cleared by the defendants and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is not at all paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. The evidence of DW-3 further goes to show that he verified the work done by the plaintiff in the presence of departmental authorities and he also sent a report. 18. The plaintiff was paid original final bill under Ex.B.1 but the defendants has not cleared the bill for additional work which was attended by the plaintiff/contractor under Ex.B.2 supplemental agreement, dated 27.09.2000. The said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not at all cleared by the defendants. 18. The plaintiff was paid original final bill under Ex.B.1 but the defendants has not cleared the bill for additional work which was attended by the plaintiff/contractor under Ex.B.2 supplemental agreement, dated 27.09.2000. The said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not at all cleared by the defendants. The contention of the defendants is that during the course of inspection, they found that substandard work was done by the plaintiff and bill for additional work under Ex.B.2 supplemental agreement order is not cleared and that they withheld the security deposit, earnest money deposit and deposited amount towards package No. 3 B.T. Road and thus withheld by the defendants. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has not attended the additional work for Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.B.2 supplemental agreement. The alleged deficiency of work and substandard work as alleged by the defendants is not at all proved by the defendants by producing cogent evidence. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,85,371/- as awarded by the learned trial Judge and on appreciation of the entire evidence on record the learned trial Judge rightly awarded the said amount of Rs.3,85,371/-. 20. It was contended by the learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing on behalf of the appellants that the trial Court awarded interest at 12% per annum on Rs.3,85,371/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization and learned Government Pleader further contended that there is no agreement between the plaintiff and defendants with regard to the rate of interest and that the plaintiff is not entitled in the interest. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Rampur Fertilizer Limited vs. Vigyan Chemicals Industries, (2009) 12 SCC 324 . The facts in the aforesaid case law are different to the instant case. In the aforesaid case law, the Government is not a party to the suit proceedings. In the present case on hand, the Government is the defendants in the suit. 22. The law is well settled that use of word “may” in Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code confers a discretion of the Court “to award” or “not to award” interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit. In the present case on hand, the Government is the defendants in the suit. 22. The law is well settled that use of word “may” in Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code confers a discretion of the Court “to award” or “not to award” interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit. In a decision reported in DDA and others v. Joginder S. Monga and others, (2004) 2 SCC 297 the Apex Court has reduced the post lite interest rate from 18% per annum to 9% per annum. “In ascertaining the rate of interest, the Courts of Law can take judicial notice of both inflation and also fall in bank lending rate of interest. The steep fall in bank lending rate of interest can be considered as ground for reducing the post lite interest from 24% per annum.” This Court is of the considered view that if rate of interest is unconscionable and usurious, the appellate Court has power to reduce the rate of interest from what was granted by the trial Court. In the case on hand, the defendants are Government department, by following the aforesaid case law, this Court is inclined to reduce the post lite interest from 12% per annum to 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of passing of the decree. Considering the said facts and also in the light of settled legal position, this Court views that the trial Court is not justified in granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and in the facts of the case on hand, it is just and reasonable to grant interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. 23. Given facts and circumstances, this Court views that the plaintiff is not entitled rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on suit amount. However, the plaintiff is entitled interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. 24. The findings arrived at by the trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence on record in this case is correct and do not call for any interference except the rate of interest as indicated above. 25. However, the plaintiff is entitled interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. 24. The findings arrived at by the trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence on record in this case is correct and do not call for any interference except the rate of interest as indicated above. 25. In the result, the appeal suit is allowed in part by modifying the judgment and decree, dated 17.12.2004 in O.S. No. 7 of 2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, as the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,85,371/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty five thousand three hundred and seventy one only) from the defendants with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on Rs.3,85,371/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the appeal. 26. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.