( 1 ) THE short question arising for determination in this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by the plaintiff Bank against the defendants/ respondents is about the legality and validity of allowing pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8% p. a. instead and in place of 19% p. a. as prayed by the plaintiff/appellant.

( 2 ) GRIEVANCE of the plaintiff/appellant is that the defendants had promised to pay interest @ 19. 5% p. a. with quarterly rest on availing the credit facilities. Default was committed due to which suit had to be filed by the Bank. Proceedings in the suit had dragged on for more than 12 years. As such the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court by allowing pendente lite and future interest only at the contractual rate of 8% p. a. in place of the contractual rate of at which it was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit i. e. , 18% p. a. is bad in law.

( 3 ) FACTS in brief are that credit facilities were obtained by the partnership firm between the period from 1. 3. 1982 to 11. 8. 1982 by defendant No. 1, a partnership firm comprising defendants 2 to 4 as its pa