Discretion by the court not to be exercised in a fanciful or whimsical manner.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.1018 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, aggrieved by the decree relating to reduction of interest, namely, 9 per cent instead of 12.5 per cent as agreed, has filed the present appeal. In view of the fact that the subject matter of the appeal relates to rate of interest payable by the defendants to the plaintiff bank for the decreed amount, it is unnecessary for this Court to refer the other details as averred in the plaint and written statement.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents.

3. There is no dispute that the first defendant, who has been holding a valid driving licence for driving heavy vehicles, approached the plaintiff bank in July, 1981 for a loan of Rs.2,36,000 for purchase of lorry chassis, constructing body and for purchase of other parts for the same. On 20.7.1981, the first defendant as the principal debtor and one Dhanabagyathammal, his mother, as guarantor gave an application to the plaintiff for the loan. Based on their representation regarding ownership of 2 acres of nanja land and a house in Puthur and that Dhanabagyathammal is the owner of a house in Puthur and besides they were willing to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000 being the margin to be provided towards the value of the vehicle, the plaintiff bank agreed to give loan for the purchase of lorry. On 28.7.1981, the first defendant duly executed a term loan agreement for the sum of Rs.2,35,000 for the purchase of lorry agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2 1/2 per cent per annum above the Reserve Bank rate subject to a minimum of 12.5 per cent per annum or at such other rate as may be notified by the bank from time to time as on 30th June and 31st December of each year; and that the entire amount including interest is repayable in 48 equal monthly instalments commencing from October, 1981. Since the defendants failed to repay the amount as agreed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. Before the Sub Court, one Vijayakumar, an officer of the bank was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-27 marked in support of their suit claim. On the other hand, no one was examined on the side of the defendants and one letter dated 20.11.1984 addressed to Rajarathinam alone has been marked as Ex.B-1. The learned Subordinate Judge after framing necessary issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit for Rs.2,69,433.38 with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the said amount from the date of the suit till date of realisation. As stated earlier, regarding the interest alone the plaintiff bank has preferred the present appeal.

4. There is no dispute that the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff bank under Ex.A-2 relating to a term loan. It is also not disputed that the defendants have agreed to repay the loan amount of Rs.2,35,000 along with interest at 12.5 per cent per annum in 48 equal monthly instalments commencing from the month of October, 1981. In other words, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs are entitled to levy interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum for the loan amount of Rs.2,35,000. It is not the case of the defendants that they were not aware of the rate of interest, nor they were not given adequate time to repay the amount. A perusal of the impugned order, particularly paragraph 14 which deals with issue No.4, shows that before filing the present suit, the plaintiff bank had sent registered letters/ notices to the defendants claiming the loan amount with interest at 12.5 per cent. It is also not disputed that the first defendant borrowed the loan amount to purchase a lorry chassis and agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 12.5. In such a circumstance, undoubtedly the plaintiff bank is entitled to the loan amount with contractual rate of interest, namely, 12.5 per cent. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Subordinate Judge has not assigned any reason in reducing