Judgment:
D.P.S. Chouhan, J.
1. Suit numbered as Civil Suit No. 67-A/90 was filed by the Central Bank of India as against Lalita Prasad and Sakhadas. The claim in the suit was for a sum of Rs. 33,488-21 p. and the interest was claimed from the date of the filing of the suit upto the payment of the amount at the rate of 16% per annum.
2. The brief facts are that the defendant No. 1 - Lalita Prasad, who is an agriculturist, took a loan of Rs. 11,200/- in the month of February, 1970 from Bilaspur Branch of the plaintiff-Bank for agriculture purpose. This loan was payable in three equal yearly instalments together with interest i.e. on 31st March, 1971, 31st March, 1972 and 31st March, 1973. The defendant No. 2 was only guarantor. The loan was for construction of well and purchasing pumping set for water facility for agricultural operation. A mortgage deed was executed on 2-5-1970 in respect of agricultural holding in favour of the Bank. The defendant No. 1 on 21-4-1970 also executed Demand Promissory Note in the sum of Rs. 11,200/- in favour of the Bank and the pump set was also hypothecated and over and above agreed interest, 4% extra interest was payable.
3. The trial Court decreed the suit for the sum of Rs. 33,488-21 p. and rate of interest from the date of filing of the suit till payment of the amount was allowed at 16% per annum. The plaintiff-Bank was also made entitled for sale of the pumping set, and out of the sale proceeds if the decree does not get satisfied, the remaining amount would be recoverable from the mortgaged land.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the respondent-plaintiff made an application before this Court under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure making a prayer for amending the relief clause 'A' to the effect that in place of Rs. 32,071-15 p., Rs. 22,071-15 p. may be recorded and in the prayer clause Rs. 33,488-21 p. be substituted by Rs. 23,488-21 p. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that the said amendment was allowed and the incorporation was also made. The change of the amount was made because of the fact that under the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 the agriculturist was entitled for being given remission of Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly this remission was allowed. Thus the claim remains only for a sum of Rs. 23,488-21 p. Out of this amount, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants have deposited Rs. 20,000/- in the trial Court on 16th June, 1992 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 5-5-1992.
6. The only question which has been agitated before this Court is regarding the rate of interest, and the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the defendant No. 1 was an agriculturist and the loan was advanced for construction of well and installation of water pumping set for agricultural operation. So far as this fact is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are not at variance.
7. Under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, where the right of citizens are mentioned, in Clause (g) thereof, the words used are 'All citizens shall have the right - (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business'. The words profession, occupation and trade or business have different connotation. The agriculture cannot come in the category of 'profession'. It cannot come in the category of 'trade or business'. It has to come in the category of 'occupation'. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for 'interest' and the same is extracted as below :
'34. (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit;'
8. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on a case Laxminarayan v. Bank of India, 1995(II) MPWN 235.
9. For the rate of interest, first clause of section 34, Civil Procedure Code would be attracted and future interest cannot exceed six per cent per annum. The word 'future interest' is not mentioned in section 34 but the words 'principal sum adjudged' infer that the rate of interest is for future, not for pendente lite because unless the case is decided there is no adjudgement of the principal sum. Though under section 34, Civil Procedure Code discretion is very wide, it also relates to the period anterior to the institution of the suit. But the rate of interest anterior to the institution of the suit is agreed upon between the parties and, therefore, there is no question of exercising any jurisdiction by this Court and under Clause (1) of section 34, Civil Procedure Code words also used are 'from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit'. There is no material on the record so to change rate of interest anterior to the date of decree as the principal sum is adjudged on the date when the decree is passed.
10. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Decree of the trial Court is modified to the extent of the change in the principal sum an amount to be reduced by Rs. 10,000/-, which is the remission given under the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 and future rate of interest after passing of the decree would be at the rate of six per cent per annum. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- as is deposited under the orders of this Court would be given set off and the decree will be prepared after giving set off. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost.