A civil court cannot grant future interest more than 6% per annum on a loan taken for a non-commercial transaction.

1. In this revision petition the judgment debtor challenges order dated March 3, 1989, passed by the executing Court (Sub Judge 1st Class, Sunam ). rejecting his objections to the execution of the decree.

2. The State Bank of Patiala advanced a loan of Rs.5000/- under an agreement of hypothecation for purchasing a mechanised cart. The amount of loan having not been refunded, the Bank filed the suit for the recovery of the said amount with interest which was decreed. It was at the time of execution of the said decree that the judgment debtor Krishan Lal filed objections. He objected to the grant of future interest under Sec.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, the Court could not grant more than six per cent future interest. This objection did not prevail and the impugned order was passed which is under challenge.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, photostat copies of the letter of undertaking and an agreement for hypothecation have been produced under which the loan was advanced. The authenticity of these documents is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent-Bank. Even at the time of arguments, it was conceded that the loan was advanced for purchasing a mechanised cart. The subject of the letter of under- taking indicates as under :" agricultural finance tractor loan/tubewell loan Rs.5000/-" The terms and conditions of the agreement show that the amount advanced was to be spent for which the loan was taken. The third schedule refered to in this argeement provides as under : "the THIRD SCHEDULE referred to above ; The tools equipments/fixtures/boats/machines and other movables connected with the/relating to farming/rearing of cattle or flock/fishing/ sericulture/mechanised cart "

4. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that since the loan in dispute was not taken for any commercial transaction, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant future interest more than six percent under Sec.34, Civil Procedure Code, as the decree providing so was without jurisdiction and could be challenged in the execution. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Siri Chand and Anr. V/s. Central Bank of India, Yamunanagar, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R.473.

5. On the other hand, on behalf of the Bank, it hag been argued that when the civil suit was tried an issue was raised regarding the rate of interest which the Bank could charge. At that time it was not asserted that future interest could not be allowed more than six per cent by the Court. The executing Court, according to the counsel for the petitioner, could not go beyond the decree. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Messers S. K. Engineering Works Batala and Ors. V/s. New Bank of India, Batala, A. I. R.1987 Punj and Hry 90.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The decision in Messrs S. K. Engineering Works case (supra) cannot be applied to the case in hand. The loan in that case was advanced on pledge of goods which obviously was for a commercial transaction. The trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the Bank with future interest at the rate of 11 per cent per annum on the decretal amount. It was held that the Bank was entitled to the contractual rate of interest The present is a, casa where the loan was not taken for commercial transaction Admittedly, the loan was taken for purchasing a mechanised cart by an agriculturist It is entirely different that this cart could be used also for carrying goods to the market for sale apart from its use for other domestic purposes, i e , carrying manure or fodder to the field or to the house Such like use of the cart cannot be considered to be commercial transaction for which the loan was taken. Sec.34 of the Civil Procedure Cods reads as under :" 34. Interest (i) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such ate as the court deems rea