S.C. Agrawal, J.

Special leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in directing payment of interest @ 6% in respect of the period the suit was pending in the trial Court.

3. The facts briefly stated are as follows:

The appellant was a partner in a partnership firm. He ceased to be a partner in the firm with effect from 12.5.1979. On his ceasing to be a partner a deed of dissolution was drawn on 12.5.1979 whereunder the share of the appellant in the assets and goodwill of the partnership was worked out at Rs. 90,000. The appellant was paid Rs. 45,000 at that time and the balance amount of Rs. 45,000 was to be paid after one year. The said amount, however, was not paid and, therefore, the appellant, on 11.5.1982, filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 45,000 with interest @ 12% per annum. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court and interest was awarded @ 6% per annum throughout, from 25.5.1980 till realisation of money. On appeal the appellate Court modified the decree and awarded interest @ 12% per annum from 12.5.1980 to 11.5.1982, the date of the filing of the suit, and @ 19.5% per annum for the period subsequent to the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount. The High Court, in second appeal, has maintained the direction regarding payment of interest @ 12% per annum from 12.5.1980 till the date of the filing of the suit on the view that payment of interest for that period was governed by the Interest Act, 1978. As regards the interest pendente lite and future interest the High Court has held that it was governed by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the High Court has directed that the said interest shall be paid @ 6% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction given by the High Court the appellant filed this appeal.

4. Shri Venkataramani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has urged that the High Court was in error in proceeding on the basis that under Section 34(1) CPC interest pendente lite was to be awarded @ 6% per annum unless the matter is governed by the proviso to Section 34(1) CPC. The submission is that the proviso only refers to that part of sub-section (1) of Section 34 which prescribes that after the passing of the decree interest shall be awarded @ 6% per annum. The submission is that as regards interest pendente lite the main part of sub-section (1) of Section 34 CPC prescribes that interest has to be awarded at a reasonable rate. We find merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. The main part of sub-section (1) of Section 34 CPC laying down that during the period the suit was pending in Court interest is to be awarded at a reasonable rate and for the period subsequent to passing of the decree interest is to be awarded @ 6% per annum and future interest at a higher rate can be awarded if the proviso is attracted. The only question is what would be the reasonable rate of interest for the period the suit was pending in the Court. Since the appellant, in his plaint, has himself claimed interest @ 12% per annum for the entire period including the period the suit is pending, we are of the view that pendente lite interest should be awarded @ 12% per annum.

5. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent that pendente lite interest for the period the suit was pending in the trial Court would be payable @ 12% per annum. No order as to costs.

Appeal partly accepted.