Report No. 63
4.12. In the Calcutta case,1 a learned Judge in Chambers said:
"Now it is to be observed, in the first place, that the Act (32 of 1839), upon which reliance is plated on the part of the plaintiffs is only an enabling Act by which the Court is vested with a discretion to grant interest under certain circumstances, upon debts or sums certain, payable at a certain time. There is nothing in the Act which creates a right to interest in favour of creditors which of itself could he made the subject-matter of a suit and this observation is, I think sufficient to dispose of the claim as regards the interest in respect of the instalment which was paid before suit."
This observation was commented upon by Jai Lal J, in the Lahore case,2 to which we have already referred:
"With great respect I am unable to agree with the reasoning underlying this remark. It is no doubt true that the question of awarding interest and of the fixing of the rate is left to the discretion pf the Court, but that is no reason for holding that the creditor has no cause of action to sue for interest. There are several instances in which the grant of relief and its extent have been left by the legislature to the discretion of the Court, but it would not be correct to hold in such cases that the plaintiff is not merely on that account entitled to sue for that relief. The reported case, it may be mentioned was for recovery of interest due on certain debentures and this was an additional ground given by the learned Judge for dismissing the suit."
1. Marshall v. Bengal Spinning and Weaving Company, (1897) 1 CWN 279 (as quoted in the Lahore case) in AIR 1931 Lah 457.
2. See, Lahore case, supra, para. 4.9.