13.Thirdly, the defendants had put for the defence that the interest charged by the plaintiff is on the higher side and they would be liable to pay the interest only at 11% per annum. From the evidence of the Bank Manager examined as P.W.1, though, he has claimed that they are entitled to charge interest for the overdraft facility extended beyond the sanctioned limit, at the interest rate prescribed by the RBI now and then, from the evidence, it is seen that the interest up to the sanction limit can be charged only at 11%. There is no material placed to show that the interest even if it is within the sanctioned limit could be charged at a higher rate. Further, it is seen that the statement of account placed by the plaintiff pertains to the period ending on 01.01.1983, the statement of accounts of previous period as well the subsequent period have not been filed. As above seen, P.W.1 is unable to substantiate as to how the Bank has charged interest as claimed in the plaint i.e., 19.5% per annum. Accordingly, it is found the first appellate court noting that the amount remaining unpaid as on 19.09.1987 being Rs.14,344.80/-, accordingly fixed the rate at 11 % at quarterly rests considering the commercial nature of the transaction and fixed the subsequent interest at 5% per annum and thereby modified the judgment and decree of the trial court. The trial court, as seen above had granted at interest at 11% compound interest with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the suit amount. The suit amount had been arrived as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff. In such view of the matter, it is thus found that the same having been arrived at, with interest charged by the plaintiff's Bank till the date of the levy of the suit and accordingly it is noted that the first appellate court had rightly finding that the amount ,which remain unpaid as on 19.09.1987 being only
