' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- The respondent No'.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,2,93,696 (Rupees two lac ninety three thousand, six hundred and ninety-six only) against the appellants and respondents Nos.2 and 3 alleging that the goods booked with the appellants did not reach their destination within the stipulated time this resulted into losses, the suit was contested by the defendants, by filing written statement. Of the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed, they were put to trial and thereafter the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 was decreed for Rs,2,93,696 (Rupees two lac ninety-three thousand, six hundred and ninety-six). Aggrieved thereof the appellants filed an appeal in this Court, later on the proceedings were remitted to the District Judge Lahore for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The lower Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal, hence the present second appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants after arguing the matter at length confined his arguments primarily to the point that it was the appellants only who filed appeal, no cross-objections were filed by the respondent No,1, but strangely enough, the learned lower Appellate Court exercising suo motu jurisdiction was pleased to inflict interest on the appellants at the rate of 15% p.a. For the period of 24 years and 9 months, according to the learned counsel this is illegal.
3. Despite publication none entered appearance on behalf of respondent No,1, therefore, the stated respondent was proceeded against ex parte on 18-12-2007.
4. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3, however, has supported the impugned judgment.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for appellants and respondents Nos.2 and 3 at length and examined the record.
6. No specific issue was framed qua the grant of interest, it also is correct that the present appeal was filed by the appellants and the respondent No,1 did not file any cross-objections. The appellants had prayed only for setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree, as well as the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The question which needs redressal is whether the lower Appellate Court is empowered to award interest for 24 years, 9 months at the rate of 15% per annum without it being the case of either party. Section 34, C.P.C. Empowers the Court to award interest, at such rate as it 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 as the Court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. The trial Court decreed the suit in sum of Rs,2,93,696 with costs. It awarded damages to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs,2,93,696 with costs but without interest. The respondent No,1 did not assail this decree by filing the cross-objections or any independent appeal claiming interest, therefore, the lower Appellate Court was not empowered under law to exercise the jurisdiction qua interest and award the relief not claimed. Therefore, impugned judgment to this extent is illegal. Resultantly this appeal is partly allowed, the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of award of 15% per annum interest for 24 years and 9 months is set aside. The rest of the judgment is maintained. No order as to costs. Decree-sheet be amended accordingly.