1. This is a civil revision by one Hakim Kamla Datt who was a plaintiff decree-holder against an order passed under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 by the Court which passed the decree in a mortgage suit of the applicant. The points which have been taken for the decree-holder are that the Court below ignored that the applicant was entitled to compound interest on the entire amount in suit during the pendency of the mortgage suit. This was the only point argued. The question turned on the interpretation of Section 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934. In its order the Court below directed that interest at the rate in Schedule 3 should be given on the principal amounts of loan for the period when the mortgage suit was pendente lite. The contention for the applicant is that it is in accordance with Order 34, Rule 11 that a decree in a mortgage suit should contain pendente lite interest not only on the principal amount alone but also on the interest which is due at the date of the suit. There is no doubt that so far as Order 34, Rule 11 is concerned the applicant is correct and that pendente lite interest is awarded on the amount due at the date of the plaint. The question however is whether the legislature intended to empower Courts which had passed the decree to reduce the decree so that pendente lite interest should only be aL lowed at the rate provided in the Schedule-on the principal amount of the loan and' not on the interest which had accrued at the date of suit. The provisions in Section 30 in question are:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in any contract to the contrary; no debtor shall be liable to pay interest on a loan taken before this Act comes into force at a rate higher than that specified in Schedule 3 for the period from 1st January 1930, till such date as may be fixed by the Local Government in the Gazette in this behalf. (2) If a decree has already been passed on the basis of a loan and remains unsatisfied in whole or in part, the Court which passed the decree shall on the application of the judgment-debtor amend it by reducing, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1), the amount decreed on account of interest.
2. Now the Court which passed the decree acting under Sub-section (2) is empowered to reduce not merely the rate of interest in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1), but 'the amount decreed on account of interest.' I think this language is of importance and that the Court was not merely empowered to reduce the rate but also to reduce the amount. If the contention for the applicant in revision were correct it would have been sufficient to provide that the Court which passed the decree may reduce the rate of interest in accordance with the schedule, but the language used is different. Now in Sub-section (2) powers are given to Courts in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) states that no debtor shall be liable to pay interest on the loan at a higher rate than the scheduled rate from a certain period. Now the language here also is more than a mere provision to reduce the rate of interest to a rate in the Schedule. The words used are 'interest on a loan.' I understand that this is to be distinguished from interest on the loan plus the amount of interest accruing by the date of the suit. I believe that the legislature intended to empower the Court to reduce the pendente lite rate of interest not merely as a rate but also to reduce the amount by providing that that interest should only be on the loan, that is the principal of the loan, and not on accrued interest. The language in both these subsections leads to that conclusion. Accordingly I think that the contention for the applicant has not been made out.
3. In this particular case there is another reason why the application must fail and that is that the rate decreed shows that the principal and interest due at the date of suit was Rs. 13,984 and then Rs. 1,287 were awarded as compound interest at 12 as. per cent on the principal sum pendente lite. The use of the words 'principal sum' indicates that this compound interest was not charged on the principal and interest due at the date of suit but only on the original amount of the sum which was Rs. 10,000. For both these reasons this application in revision must fail. Some further argument was made about interest on costs, but this does not appear as a ground of revision. In any case I do not think that the Court is bound to grant interest on the costs and the Court has a discretion in this matter under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. As regards the powers of a Court under that Act I may point to Section 4, Civil P.C., which says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any special or local law. This Agriculturists' Relief Act which is a special law therefore must prevail over the provisions of Order 34. For these reasons I dismiss this application in revision with costs.