JUDGMENT - Dr. B. P. SARAF, J.:--The controversy in this appeal pertains to the scope and ambit of the power of the Court to grant pendente lite interest under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C."). The appellant had filed a suit against the respondent-insurance company for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,500/- by way of damages on account of destruction of its boiler house by fire. The boiler house, which had been destroyed by fire on 8th September, 1982 was insured with the respondent-insurance company for Rs. 54,000/-. The appellant lodged a claim with the respondent-insurance company for a sum of Rs. 51,500/-. Rs. 50,000/- on account of destruction of the boiler house by fire and Rs. 1,500/- by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred by it in extinguishing the fire. This claim was not accepted by the respondent-insurance company who estimated the loss at Rs. 18,400/- only and offered to pay the said amount to the appellant in full and final settlement of its claim. The appellant did not accept the above offer and filed a suit in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule for recovery of Rs. 51,500/- which was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 1983.

2. The learned Joint Civil Judge ("trial Court") determined the loss caused to the boiler house by fire at Rs. 43,000/-. The trial Court also found that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the Dhule Municipal Council for the fire fighting services. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 44,500/-. The appellant was also awarded proportionate costs. The trial Court, however, refused to grant pendente lite interest as also future interest from the date of the decree till realisation. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the correctness of the order of the trial Court in so far as it relates to refusal to grant interest pendente lite and future interest. According to the appellant the trial Court failed to appreciate the true scope and ambit of section 34 of the C.P.C. and committed manifest error of law in refusing to grant pendente lite and future interest. The contention of the appellant is that under section 34 of the C.P.C. the Court has no discretion in the matter of grant of interest. It is obliged to grant interest. Discretion under that section, according to the appellant, is confined only to the rate of interest. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in (W. B. Financial Corporation v. Bertram Scott (I) Ltd.)1, A.I.R. 1983 Cal. 381. The appellant submits that he is entitled to interest pendente lite as well as future interest from the date of the decree till realisation on the decretal amount at such rate as this Court deems reasonable.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. To appreciate the same, it is expedient to peruse section 34 of the C.P.C. which provides for grant of interest pendente lite and future interest from the date of the decree till realisation. Section 34 provides:

"(1) Where and in so for 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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document