Chitambaresh, J.

The component of interest has become disproportionate to the component of the principal sum actually advanced more so because of the pendency of this Appeal Suit for 20 long years.

2. The appellants who are the partnership firm and its partners availed two overdraft facilities of Rs.2,00,000/- each and a fully secured loan of Rs.1,72,000/- from the respondent Bank. The agreed rates of interest for the two overdraft facilities were 17% per annum and 19.5% per annum and that for the fully secured loan was 19.5% per annum. The stipulation as regards the rates of interest were incorporated in the various loan documents evidenced by Exts.B6, B13, B31, B36 and B49. The court below has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.13,57,642/- which includes the sum of Rs.5,72,000/- towards the principal and Rs.7,85,642/- towards the interest. It is a conceded fact that the component of interest did exceed the component of the principal sum even on the date of the suit or the decree. The court below has awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of suit and the amount now due under the decree has swelled upto a whopping sum of Rs.59,66,653/-.

3. The only ground urged by the appellants is that the rate of interest is liable to be scaled down applying the dictum in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra [2002 (1) KLT 743 (SC)]. The appellants relied on paragraph 55(8) of the judgment which inter alia reads as follows:-

"55(8) Award of interest pendente lite and post- decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC dehors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post-decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline awarding such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously and for reasons and not in an arbitrary and fanciful manner."

The appellants fervently pleaded that the rate of interest be scaled down to 9% per annum for the pre decretal period and 6% per annum for the post decretal period till realisation of the amounts.

4. The respondent Bank on the other hand relied on para 55(3) of Central Bank of India's case (supra) which reads as follows:-

"55(3) The prevalence of banking practice legitimatises stipulations as to interest on periodical rests and their capitalisation being incorporated in contracts. Such stipulations incorporated in contracts voluntarily entered into and binding on the parties all govern the substantive rights and obligations of the parties as to recovery and payment of interest."

The respondent Bank asserted that it is legitimate to stipulate interest on periodical rests and their capitalisation being incorporated in contracts entered into by the parties. Such agreements clothe the Bank with the right to claim interest as agreed upon as per Section 3(3)(a)(i) of the Interest Act, 1978 to which no exception can be taken. The respondent bank pointed out that even penal interest leviable at the rate of 2% per annum was not charged and that only the agreed rates of interest were claimed. The respondent bank contended that the property mortgaged by the appellants of extent 9 cents and 38 cents with a building thereon is sufficient to satisfy the decree.

5. We heard Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent bank.

6. The substantive right of the bank to claim interest at the agreed rates exceeding the current rate under the loan agreements as per Section 3 (3)(a)(i) of the Interest Act is beyond dispute. The stipulation as to interest on periodical rests and their capitalisation being incorporated in contracts is legitimate and prevalent in banking practice. Such stipulatio