Shyam Sundar Agrawal @APPELLANT@Hash M/s Bansal Ispat Udyog

This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2003 passed by Additional District Judge (FTC) Raipur, CG in Civil Suit No. 13-

B/2002 decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and also awarding the interest upon the loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the rate of 2%

per annum instead of it being per mensem. Aggrieved by this portion of the judgment impugned awarding the per annum interest at the rate of 2%,

this appeal under Section 96 CPC has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

According to the appellant/plaintiff, he was the proprietor of the Firm styled as Narsinghlal Agrawal & Sons. Respondent No.1 â€" M/s Bansal

Ispat Udyogis is also a registered partnership firm and respondents No. 2 to 6 are its partners carrying on its business. On 08.11.1995 respondent No.

4 took a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the

 laintiff for the business purpose of respondent No.1 by executing a promissory note (Ex. P-5). By way of said promissory note, payment of interest

at the rate of 2% per annum on the entire loan amount was agreed upon by respondent No.4. Thereafter, as per the case of the plaintiff, the

respondents kept on making payment of interest at the rate of 2% per mensem till 03.04.1997 in pursuance of the document of Ex. P-5 but

thereafter they stopped paying the interest and also did not pay the principal amount. Even on demand, the respondents/defendants remained

persistent in not making the payment either towards interest or the principal amount. Being aggrieved by this indifferent attitude of the respondents,

the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit on 21.07.1997 which was decreed in his favour, however, the Court below has awarded the interest on the loan

amount at the rate of 2% per annum.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record including the judgment impugned.

Learned Court below has clearly held in the judgment impugned that in view of the promissory note dated 08.11.1995Â (Ex.P-5) stipulating the rate

of interest on the loan amount as 2% perannum, oral testimony of Kishan Kumar (AW-1) to the effect that the interest fixed on the loan amount was

2% per mensem, cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. Learned Court below has also clarified that as is

evident from the document of Ex. P-1 an amount of Rs. 6000/- paid to the plaintiff by the defendants on 13.11.1995 through cheque was not

towards interest as till then that much interest did not fall due for because the promissory note Ex. P-5 itself was of 08.11.1995.

It is a settled legal position that the plaintiff himself has to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence admissible in law. However, in the

case in hand the plaintiff has orally contradicted his own document (Ex.P-5) in a bid to prove that the interest fixed on the loan amount was 2% per

mensem though Ex. P-5 speaks to the contrary that it was per annum. While deciding issue No.3 the trialCourt has given a finding that the oral

evidence cannot be accepted as per the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act particularly when there is a promissory note standing in black

and white. Moreover, Ex. P-1 â€" the bank ledger pertaining to the account of appellant/plaintiff shows that the entry made on 13.11.1995 showing

deposit of Rs. 6000/- towards interest has been found to be the part of principal amount which has been dealt with by the Court below while deciding

issue No.5.

Thus, in aforesaid view of the matter, the Court below has not committed any illegality in awarding interest to the plaintiff on the loan amount at the

rate of 2% per annum in view of the unambiguous promissory note Ex. P-5 warranting interference by this Court. Appeal therefore, has no substance

and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. Let decree be drawn accordingly.

Parties to bear their own cost throughout.