P.C. Pandit, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of Rs. 6,735/-with interest on the basis of a pronote for Rs. 5,303/-executed in his favour by the defendant-respondent. The amount carried interest at nine annas per cent per annum.
2. The respondent admitted the execution of the pronote and pleaded that he was prepared to pay the amount that was due from him after the accounts had been gone into and explained to him.
3. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 6,532/- but ordered that the decretal amount would be paid in five yearly instalments. It was further provided in the decree that in case of default of any one instalment, the whole of the amount would become due.
4. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff on two grounds -
1. that the decretal amount should not have been ordered to be paid in instalments; and
2. that contractual rate of interest should have been allowed on the decretal amount from the date of the suit till the date of payment.
5. Ground No. (1) was not pressed before us because the entire decretal amount has already beenpaid by instalments.
6. As regards ground No. (2), the learned counsel for the appellant relied On the provisions of Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and a ruling reported as Mt. Bhagwanti v. Atma Singh, AIR 1934 Lah 32, and contended that the trial Court was, under the law, bound to allow interest at the contractual rate from the date of the suit till realisation.
7. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. A bare reading of Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shows that the award of interest, after the date of the suit is within the discretion of the Court and I am not prepared to hold that in this particular case the discretion has, in any way, been wrongly exercised by the trial Court, because I find that the respondent has already paid practically twice the amount originally advanced by the appellant to him.
8. I have also gone through the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, but I find that it does not support his contention. The head-note of this ruling, however, is somewhat misleading.
9. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal but, in the circumstances of the case, make no order as to costs in this Court.
G.D. Khosla, C.J.
10. I agree.