The court has the discretion to award interest to the seller from the date of delivery of goods upto the date of payment even in the absence of any contract for payment of interest.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court reversing on appeal those of the trial court and decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rupees 6500/ - with costs.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 6500 / - on the grounds that Rs. 5021-49 were outstanding against the defendant-appellant on account of balance of the price of sanitary goods and material supplied to him on credit during the period from 28-4-69 to 15-10-1970 and Rs.1471-07 to be due from him by way of interest at 12 per cent per annum or in the alternative compensation for loss of interest and profit on the same by further investing in business. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds including that the plaintiff-firm being not a registered one, the suit was liable to be dismissed on that short ground. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm and the suit has been filed by a competent person? Opp. 2. Whether suit against the defendant is not competent? 3. Whether the goods supplied were not in accordance with the contract? Opp 4. To what amount is the plaintiff entitled, if any on account of supply of goods ? Opp 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest if so, at what rate and to what amount? Opp 6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs, if so, to what amount? Opp 7. Whether the present suit is within time? 8. Relief.

The trial judge under issue No. 1 found that the plaintiff had failed to prove by cogent evidence if it was a registered firm and therefore it could not be, said that the suit had been filed by a competent person. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the suit was competent against the defendant. Under issue No. 4 it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 6500 / - from the defendant. Under issue No. 5 it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any interest on the balance amount. Under issue No. 6, it was held that no evidence had been placed on the record which might show that the defendant-respondent was entitled to any special costs. Under issue No. 7, the Court gave finding that the suit was within time. As a result of finding on issue No, 1, the suit was dismissed, In first appeal, the plaintiff moved an application under O.41, R.27 of the Civil P.C. for permission to bring on record copy of form andBand by way of additional evidence for proving registration of plaintiff firm earlier to the institution of the suit. The first appellate Court allowed additional evidence under O. 41 R. 27(1)(b) of the Civil P.C. It allowed additional evidence since it felt that the production of copy of certificate of registration of the plaintiff-firm under the partnership Act is necessary for pronouncing effective judgment and for deciding the appeal in a more satisfactory manner and also to do justice between the parties. In coming to the conclusion, the appellate Court relied upon the dictim of the apex Court in State of U.P. V/s. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 912 and K. Venkataramiah V/s. A. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1526. Under and issue No. 2, the first appellate Court awarded interest to the plaintiff u/ S. 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act and resultantly decreed the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant has assailed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in the present appeal. The learned counsel had made the following submissions :-

(i) Additional evidence has been wrongly allowed and in support of this submission he relied upon Sunder Lal and Son V/s. Bharat Handicrafts Private Ltd. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 406 and Velji Deoraj and Co. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City II, Bombay, (1968) 1 ITJ 322. (ii) The interest would not be granted to the seller under the provisions of S. 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act. 2A. The submissions are