The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 74 of the Contract Act to determine the quantum of interest to be allowed, considering the specific circumstances of the case.

Findlay, J C—The bond in suit for Rs. 4,000 was executed on 16th July 1922. Repayment was to be made on 15th February 1923, and the original rate of interest fixed was 1 per cent, per mensem simple. If repayment was not made, compound interest was to run at 2 per cent, per mensem, compound yearly. The lower Courts have granted simple interest at Re. 1-8-0 per cent, per mensem from the date fixed for repayment.

2. It has not been contended here that, the lower Courts were incorrect in holding that the provision for compound interest at an enhanced rate was a penal; one. What has been urged is that, afc the least, the appellant should have been allowed simple interest at 2 per cent, per mensem, or compound interest at 1 per cent, per mensem.

3. It has been urged on the strength of the decisions in Sundar Koer v. Rai Sham Krishen, 1906 34 IndApp 9 and Dandu v. Somnath,1910 6 NLR 109 that interest, as just stated, should have been at least allowed to the plaintiff. Bach case, however, has to be judged on its own merits as regards the quantum of interest to be allowed in a case like the present. The governing; provision is Section 74, Contract Act, and what the Court has to do is to see that reasonable compensation, not exceeding the penalty stipulated for, or up to that amount, should be given. In the circumstances of the present case, I am in full agreement with the lower Court as regards the propriety of only simple interest at Re. 1-8-0 per cent, per mensem being granted.

4. Each and every case has to be judged on its own merits as regards the quantum of compensation so to be given. Here we have the following facts. The bond in suit was wholly for old debt with the exception that Rs. 400 was added by way of interest on the date of the bond. The time fixed for repayment was unusually short, only seven months being allowed. The rate of 1 per cent, per mensem simple interest was quite a normal one, but the provision for enhanced compound interest at 2 per cent, per mensem was a highly penal one. In those circumstances, it is only too obvious that the plaintiff has received ample compensation, so far as the rate of interest is concerned from the date fixed for repayment, at the hands of the lower Courts.

5. The next point urged is that future interest at 8 annas per cent, per mensem should be allowed. In view of the extremely onerous terms of the bond, and the amount still due in spite of the repayments amounting to Rs. 3,070-4-0, I see no reason whatever to allow future interest.

6. Lastly, it has been urged that interest pendente lite should have been allowed. This was, in effect, allowed by the Judge of the first Court in para. 10 of his judgment. It was also explicitly mentioned in the decree, although the amount of pendente lite interest was not actually calculated. The lower appellate Court apparently took the view that it was the duty of the present appellant to have appealed as regards this item also. I cannot agree in this view, but, in order to remove any uncertainty in the matter, a fresh decree will be drawn up in this Court, in which simple interest at Rs. 12 per cent, per annum from 6th February 1925, the date of the institution of the suit to 20th July 1925, the date of the decree, of the principal amount of Rs. 2,048-12-0 will be added to the amount of Rs. 2,372-6-0 already decreed. The respondents have not been represented on appeal and, as the present appeal has, to all intents and purposes, failed, the appellant must bear his own costs in this Court.