Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant State Bank of India is directed against the judgment dated 23rd March, 1995 and decree dated 29th March, 1995 passed in Money Suit No. 16 of 1984 whereby and where under the learned sub-Judge-II, Chaibasa decreed the suit but reduced the rate of interest from 13.5% per annum to 10% per annum.

2. Case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief is that defendant- respondent No. 2 applied for cash credit facility before the plaintiff-appellant which is a banking company up to the sum of Rs. 95,000/- on 6.12.1979 and defendant No. 2 executed several documents and surety in favour of the plaintiff-bank. The defendant-respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 stood as guarantor of the defendant- respondent No. 2 and defendant-respondent No. 2 availed the said case credit facility from the plaintiff bank after executing Demands Promissory Note and the Promissory Note were delivered to the plaintiff-bank by defendant-respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on 6.12.1979 along with Demand Promissory Note under the signatures of defendant-respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Other terms were also executed by defendant-respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Defendant-respondent No. 2 appeared in the suit and filed written statement stating therein that the suit is not maintainable and it is bared by law of limitation and ultimately submitted that he is ready to pay the actual and genuine dues of plaintiff-bank and he is regularly depositing the cheque as per decision rendered in Money Suit No. 13 of 1984.

3. On the pleadings of the parties learned Court below framed following issues which are as follows :-

1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

2. Has the plaintiff valid cause of action or right to sue?

3. Is the plaintiff bank entitled to get a decree of Rs. 3,31,872,76/- with interest

4. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

4. Issue No. 3 was the most important issue and while deciding this issue the learned Court below decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff-bank, but reduced the amount of interest from 13.5% per annum to 10% per annum future and pendelite.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this rate of interest was agreed upon between the parties at the time of awarding cash credit facility to the defendant-respondent No. 2 for which defendant-respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 stood as guarantor and agreed on that rate of interest. It is a settled principle of law that rate of interest agreed upon between the parties cannot be disturbed as per Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is quoted herein-below :

"34.-(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 nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.

Explanation I.-In this Sub-section "nationalized bank" means a correspondent 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