D.B. Bhosale, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2003 rendered by the learned Joint civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No.347 of 1988 instituted by the respondent-plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,64,000/- against the appellant-defendant along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. By the impugned judgment, the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs.12 lacs together with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the entire amount and also directed to pay Rs.20,931.50 towards interest for the period from 3.12.1997 to 23.8.1998, that is, the period prior to institution of the suit.

2. Basic facts of the suit are not in dispute. As a matter of fact, Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, submitted that he has instructions to confine challenge in the appeal only to the rate of interest, awarded by the trial Court and seek 9 per cent per annum interest on the amount of Rs.12 lacs only from the date of the suit till realization of the entire amount. In view thereof, we do not propose to make a detailed reference to the facts.

3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff is a trader and businessman. He knew the defendant and he claims that he had extended financial aid to him from time to time. On 30.11.1997, the defendant once again had approached the plaintiff with a request to give a loan of Rs. 12 lacs. The plaintiff did pay this amount to the defendant on 30.11.1997 in cash. The defendant had promised to return the said amount on 3.12.1997. The defendant had accordingly issued a cheque bearing No.050646 dated 3.12.1997 of Rs.12 lacs drawn on Mahesh Sahakari Bank Ltd.. The amount was not paid as promised, the plaintiff, thereafter, had presented the said cheque for encashment and since it was bounced he has filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the defendant did not make payment of the aforesaid amount the plaintiff instituted the instant suit for recovery of the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

4. The trial Court has decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff has brought sufficient evidence on record to prove that he had paid Rs 12 lacs to the defendant by way of loan on 30.11.1997 and that the defendant had promised to pay the said amount on or before 3.12.1997 by issuing post-dated cheque. The defence propounded by the defendant that the aforesaid amount was paid by the plaintiff for the purchase of shares has not been accepted by the trial Court. Insofar as the claim towards interest on the amount of Rs.12 lacs for the period before and after the suit, the trial Court has granted it at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The trial Court has further held that the plaintiff is entitled to get interest of Rs.40,931.50 for the period from 3.12.1997 to 23.2.1998, that is, for the period prior to the suit. Admittedly, the defendant had paid Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff and hence the Court has directed the defendant to pay the balance of Rs.20,931.50 only.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant only on the rate of interest awarded by the trial court which, according to Mr Anturkar, was much higher than what the plaintiff is entitled in law. He invited our attention to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC") and submitted that since there was no agreement for the payment of interest between the parties and that the amount was not received for commercial purpose, the Court below was wrong in awarding interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. He submitted that the facts of the case clearly show that the plaintiff was not entitled for any interest and he was supposed to return only Rs.12 lacs and, therefore, the cheque of that amount only was issued. He submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of law in awarding interest at the rate of 15% per annum from th