Pendente lite interest is discretionary; delay caused by the plaintiff's inaction cannot justify interest for the dormant period.

A money decree governed by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not authorise pre-suit interest, and pendente lite interest is discretionary rather than automatic. Where the plaint was returned for rectification and remained unrepresented for over five years because of the plaintiff's inaction, the plaintiff could not claim interest for that dormant period. The award of interest for the period from January 20, 2000 to July 20, 2005 was therefore unjustified and was set aside, while the remainder of the decree was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest could be awarded for the period during which the plaint, after being returned for rectification of defects, was not re-presented for more than five years.

Analysis: The claim for interest related to a money decree governed by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits interest from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter, but does not authorise pre-suit interest. The award of pendente lite interest is not automatic and depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the plaint remained unrepresented for a prolonged period due to the plaintiff's inaction, the plaintiff could not take advantage of that delay to claim interest for the dormant period.

Conclusion: The award of interest for the period from January 20, 2000 to July 20, 2005 was unjustified and was set aside, while the remainder of the decree was maintained.

---