could not have been so granted. It was submitted that various loans were advanced by the appellant to the respondent categorically stipulating interest at the rate of 36% p.a. on repayment. Once this contractual rate of interest was agreed upon by the parties, there was no scope for the Division Bench to state that there was no stipulation to pay interest in the Agreement. The Agreement had to be read in conjunction with various promissory notes and documents evidencing the mortgage and repayment of the loan with interest. Learned counsel contended that the Division Bench erred in holding that there was no prayer for grant of a personal decree against the respondent. It was submitted that the prayer clause of the plaint would show to the contrary. 14. On the Second Impugned Order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench went wrong in not appreciating that8 the appellant had never authorized his counsel to represent him in the OSA and his vakalatnama was