JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.' hereinafter). The defendant in O.S.No.257/2008 on the files of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, has preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment in the said suit dated 15.09.2010. The plaintiff is the sole respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff in detail. Perused the trial court records. 3. The parties in this appeal will be referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' hereinafter for easy discussion. 4. Tracing the genesis of the case, the plaintiff filed the suit to realise Rs.6,50,000/- from the defendant alleging that the said amount was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff on 24.03.2008 and in discharge of the said sum, he had issued a cheque dated 24.04.2008. When the cheque was presented for collection, the same got dishonoured. Accordingly, Rs.6,89,000/- with future interest was claimed. 5. Defendant filed written statement admitting that he borrowed an amount of Rs.5 lakh from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. At the time of borrowing the said sum, two blank signed cheque leafs were given to the plaintiff on 24.03.2008, the date of borrowing the amount. According to the defendant, out of the total sum of Rs.5 lakh as per cheque dated 02.04.2008 drawn on the Indian Bank, Balaramapuram Branch, Rs.2 lakh was repaid. 6. The trial court raised necessary issues and tried the matter. PW1 and PW2 examined and Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 and DW2 examined and Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the defendant. Exts.X1 also marked through PW2. 7. On analysis of evidence, the trial court decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise Rs.6,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the date of suit till realisation from the defendant and his assets. 8. While assailing the verdict of the trial court, the specific case of the defendant is that the amount admittedly borrowed by the defendant is only Rs.5 lakh, out of which Rs.2 lakh was repaid on 02.04.2008 as per Ext.B2 cheque. 8. While assailing the verdict of the trial court, the specific case of the defendant is that the amount admittedly borrowed by the defendant is only Rs.5 lakh, out of which Rs.2 lakh was repaid on 02.04.2008 as per Ext.B2 cheque. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, receipt of Rs.2 lakh on the strength of Ext.B2 was proved through the evidence of DW1, the Manager of Indian Bank and Ext.B1 statement. Rather, the same is admitted by the plaintiff who got examined as PW1. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in granting decree for the total claim of Rs.6,50,000/-. According to the learned counsel, Rs.2 lakh covered by Ext.B2 cheque ought to be adjusted towards the debt, and the decree would require interference accordingly. 9. Whereas it is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the plaintiff's case that the defendant borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- on 24.03.2008 and consequently, issuance of Ext.A1 cheque dated 24.04.2008 has been proved. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, though as per Ext.B2, the plaintiff admitted the encashment of Rs.2 lakh from the account of the defendant, the same pertains to a different transaction. According to the plaintiff, the same was for a transaction on 10.02.2008 as deposed by PW1 during cross-examination. Therefore, the trial court verdict is only to be justified. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision of this Court reported in Ravi Prasad v. Chithra P. Nair [2023 KHC 32] to contend that once the signature of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument is established, then the 'reverse onus' clauses become operative and in such cases, the obligation shifts on the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in this matter, going by the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the transaction as well as the execution of Ext.A1 were proved and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended (for short 'NI Act' hereafter) and in such view of the matter, the trial court decree is only to be confirmed. 11. 11. The learned counsel for the defendant placed decision of this Court reported in Purushothaman Nair P. v. Sreekantan Nair [ 2013 (3) KHC 628 ] , where it has been held that a combined reading of Sections 5 and 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would make it clear that an instrument would be a cheque if only it contains the particulars as mentioned in the two sections referred to above. If drawee's name is not written in the instrument, that instrument cannot be termed to be a bill of exchange. Therefore, if it is only a signed blank cheque leaf, it cannot be said to be a cheque within the meaning of Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 12. In view of the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are; (1) Whether the trial court was justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the transaction for Rs.6,50,000/- that led to the execution of Ext.A1 cheque? (2) Whether the trial court went wrong in not considering the payment of Rs.2 lakh as adjustment towards the debt in view of Ext.B2 cheque, which was admitted by the plaintiff? (3) What is the rate of interest payable in a suit for money based on a negotiable instrument when the instrument doesn't specify the interest? (4) How Section 80 of the NI Act and Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure would operate? (5) Whether the decree and judgment would require interference? (6) Relief and cost. 13. In this matter, even though the defendant put up a case that he borrowed only Rs.5 lakh, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 would show that the defendant borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- and issued Ext.A1 cheque in discharge of the same as contended by the plaintiff. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, even though some minor anomaly is brought out, on material particulars, the evidence is fully convincing to hold that the defendant borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- from the plaintiff and issued Ext.A1 cheque for the same. Therefore, the said finding is only to be confirmed. 14. But the controversy centers as regards to the payment of Rs.2 lakh on the basis of Ext.B2 which was admitted by PW1, rather proved through the evidence of DW1 and Ext.B2. Therefore, the said finding is only to be confirmed. 14. But the controversy centers as regards to the payment of Rs.2 lakh on the basis of Ext.B2 which was admitted by PW1, rather proved through the evidence of DW1 and Ext.B2. The defendant mainly contends that the trial court went wrong in not adjusting Rs.2 lakh, as per Ext.B2, from the principal sum while granting the decree. 15. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the deposition of DW2, he conceded issuance of cheque for Rs.2 lakh for another transaction and the plaintiff also given evidence as PW1 that he had received Ext.B2 cheque amount for a different transaction on 10.02.2008. Therefore, the contention raised by the defendant that he had partially discharged the liability of Rs.2 lakh pertaining to this transaction could not succeed. 16. In view of the rival submissions, I have perused the written statement filed by the defendant and his evidence as DW2. In the written statement, specific contention raised by the defendant is that he borrowed Rs.5 lakh on 24.03.2008 and repaid Rs.2 lakh through Ext.B2 on 02.04.2008. No replication filed disputing this contention at the instance of the plaintiff. In the chief affidavit also, this contention was not denied. However, during cross-examination, PW1 admitted receipt of Rs.2 lakh by encashing Ext.B2 cheque, but the case of PW1 during cross-examination is that Ext.B2 was issued for an earlier transaction on 10.02.2008. In fact, the evidence of DW2 in no way suggest that DW2 admitted another transaction for Rs.2 lakh in between the plaintiff and himself as contended by the learned counsel for the defendant; and his specific version is that this is the one and only transaction between the plaintiff and defendant though he used to obtain small sum to the tune of Rs.500/- from the plaintiff otherwise, being nearest shop owners. In the instant case, the plaintiff never disclosed any other transaction between the plaintiff and defendant apart from the present one averred in the plaint, till the stage of his cross-examination. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- on 24.03.2008 and he failed to return the same though he issued Ext.A1 cheque to discharge the said liability. As per Ext.B2 evidently and admittedly, the plaintiff received Rs.2 lakh on 02.04.2008 after the present transaction. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- on 24.03.2008 and he failed to return the same though he issued Ext.A1 cheque to discharge the said liability. As per Ext.B2 evidently and admittedly, the plaintiff received Rs.2 lakh on 02.04.2008 after the present transaction. Apart from answering a query during cross-examination that Ext.B2 cheque amount was received for a different transaction on 10.02.2008, such a previous transaction in no way either pleaded or proved. Therefore, the available evidence would suggest that the plaintiff received Rs.2 lakh out of Rs.6,50,000/- borrowed from the defendant on 24.03.2008 and the said amount to be adjusted and reduced for Rs.6,50,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.4,50,000/- alone as the amount due to him in this transaction. 17. In view of the said finding, the decree and judgment of the trial court is interfered and modified to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- instead of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest on the date of the suit that would come to 29,000/-. 18. Point Nos.1, 2 and 5 answered accordingly. 19. Point Nos.3 and 4:- It is argued by the learned counsel for the defendant that in the instant case, the trial court granted interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the suit till realisation. But Section 34 of C.P.C. provides for interest at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till realisation. Therefore, the interest from the date of decree till realisation to be reduced to 6%. Countering this argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this is a suit based on a cheque/negotiable instrument, therefore, grant of interest is governed under Section 80 of NI Act and the same is 18% with effect from 30.12.1988. Therefore, the interest granted by the trial court, which is less than 18% is not liable to be interfered. 20. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Section 34 of C.P.C. and Section 80 of NI Act. Section 34 of C.P.C. provides as under; 34. Therefore, the interest granted by the trial court, which is less than 18% is not liable to be interfered. 20. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Section 34 of C.P.C. and Section 80 of NI Act. Section 34 of C.P.C. provides as under; 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 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: 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 per cent 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 nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I.—In this sub-section, “nationalised bank” means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie. 21. Section 80 of NI Act provides as under; 80. 21. Section 80 of NI Act provides as under; 80. Interest when no rate specified.— When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument, be calculated at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum, from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged, until tender or realization of the amount due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the Court directs. Explanation.—When the party charged is the indorser of an instrument dishonoured by non- payment, he is liable to pay interest only from the time that he receives notice of the dishonour. 22. It is true that, as per Section 34 of C.P.C. insofar as a decree is for the payment of money, in the decree, the court can order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree, but further interest has to be at the rate not exceeding 6% per annum, as the Court deems reasonable, on such principal sum from the date of the decree till the date of payment. 23. This Court had occasion to consider a suit for money based on a contract where the interest was not specified in the decision reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 32] Suja Rajendran v. Jalaludeen where the return of advance amount was granted with 12% interest till decree and 6% thereafter from the date of decree till realisation. 24. In the said case, this Court held that on a bare reading of S.34(1) of the C.P.C., it is specifically clear that, insofar as a decree for payment of money is concerned, the Court has the discretion to 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. Insofar as interest from the date of decree till realisation is concerned, the same is one not exceeding 6% per annum till date of payment. Insofar as interest from the date of decree till realisation is concerned, the same is one not exceeding 6% per annum till date of payment. It is true that in cases involving commercial transactions, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6%, in terms of the contract. Thus, it appears that, in the instant case,the plaintiff prayed to grant the suit amount “with further interest”. S.34 of the C.P.C. provides grant of interest in between the filing of the suit and the date of decree at the discretion of the court and further interest not exceeding 6% from the date of decree till date of realisation. Therefore, in view of S.34 of the C.P.C., even though in a suit for money, the suit document does not provide any interest,the court has the discretion to grant the same by invoking power under S.34 of the C.P.C. 25. In the said suit, the suit document was a contract and not a negotiable instrument. It is interesting to note that grant of interest, not exceeding 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of payment, was as per the amendment brought into Section 34 of C.P.C. with effect from 01.01.1957. As per Section 80 of NI Act, before 30.12.1988, the interest on negotiable instrument also was at the rate of 6%. But Section 80 of NI Act got amended with effect from 30.12.1988 and thereby the interest was enhanced to eighteen per centum from six per centum. It is the settled law that the provisions of special law would prevail over the general law. Similarly, a special provision would override a general provision. Therefore, in a suit based on negotiable instrument, grant of interest shall be at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum, as provided under Section 80 of the NI Act. In such view of the matter, in deviation from the general prescription regarding grant of interest in a decree for payment of money based on documents other than negotiable instrument, as provided under Section 34 of C.P.C., the court has the power to grant interest at eighteen per centum, in tune with the mandate of Section 80 of the NI Act. Thus the law is clear on the point that in a decree for payment of money based on documents other than a negotiable instrument, Section 34 would govern grant of interest and in decree for payment of money based on a negotiable instrument, the interest on the amount due shall be governed by Section 80 of the NI Act, notwithstanding any interest relating to the interest between any parties to the instrument. 26. In the instant case, the trial court granted only 9% interest and no challenge raised by the plaintiff in the matter of grant of interest. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with 9% interest granted by the trial court for the decree amount. Point Nos.3 and 4 answered accordingly. 27. Before parting, it is anxious to note that post decree interest not exceeding 6% in a suit for money as provided in Section 34 of C.P.C., is an introduction of the legislature with effect from 01.01.1957. It is noticeable that proviso to Section 34 of C.P.C. brought by way of amendment with effect from 01.07.1977 provides interest in excess of 6% in commercial transactions where contractual rate would apply. Section 80 of the NI Act got amended raising the interest from six percentum to eighteen percentum with effect from 30.12.1988. But the legislature not made a call to amend Section 34 in this regard. It seems that amendment to Section 34 insofar as grant of post decree interest is the need of the hour, in a financial system where nobody would get loan from any sources at the rate of 6% or less. Therefore, it is necessary to make appropriate amendment in Section 34 of C.P.C. Accordingly, Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry is recommended to consider appropriate amendment in Section 34 of C.P.C. regarding grant of post decree interest by increasing the same from 6% to a reasonable sum, in tune with the present scenario. 28. 28. Point No.6:- In the result, this appeal is allowed in part interfering and modifying the decree granted by the trial court and thereby the defendant is directed to pay Rs.4,79,000/- (Rupees four lakh seventy nine thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the date of the suit till realisation from the defendant and his assets with proportionate cost of the plaintiff in the original suit. 29. In the facts of this case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court for information forthwith.