Vijay Parkash vs Ram Niwas

Surinder Gupta, J.

C.M. No. 401-C of 2015

Application is for making good the deficiency of court fee. It is submitted that the deficiency of court fee has now been made good.

Application stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 402-C of 2015

Heard. There is delay of 68 days in re-filing the appeal.

It is submitted that the appeal was filed on 02.07.2014 and registry returned the same with some objections on 17.07.2014. As the counsel for the appellant had to obtain some information and ad valorem court fee from the appellant but could not contact him well in time and the appeal was re-filed on 07.10.2014. Again the appeal was returned with some objections on 29.10.2014 and re-filed on 21.11.2014, resulting in delay of 68 days in re-filing the appeal.

In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed and delay of 68 days in re-filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.

R.S.A. No. 135 of 2015

This is appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby his suit for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- was decreed along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of advancement of loan till actual realization.

The case of the appellant-plaintiff, in brief, is that respondent-defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from him as loan on 02.02.2008 and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour. On 09.02.2008, respondent-defendant took another loan of Rs. 10,000 from him and executed a pronote and receipt in this regard. The rate of interest was agreed as 2% per month. The respondent-defendant defaulted in repayment of principal and the interest necessitating the filing of the suit by appellant-plaintiff.

The respondent-defendant in written statement denied the taking of loan or execution of pronotes and receipts.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon while decreeing the suit, declined the interest @ 24% per annum terming the same as highly exorbitant and allowed the interest @ 6% per annum only on the principal amount.

Not satisfied, the plaintiff filed the appeal before the District Judge, Jind which was also dismissed with the observations that interest claimed by the plaintiff @ 24% per annum is exorbitant and interest @ 6% per annum has been rightly allowed taking into consideration the financial status of the respondent-defendant and it would be unfair and unjust to allow interest @ 2% per month.

Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has argued that the rate of interest was agreed as 2% per month, as such, both the Courts below have committed grave error of law and fact while restricting the grant of interest to 6% per annum.

Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure provides discretionary powers to the Court to award interest at such rate as the Court deem reasonable to the principal sum. In this case, both the Courts have found the interest claimed @ 2% per month as exorbitant and exercised their discretion while allowing interest on principal amount @ 6% per annum. The transaction between the parties was not a commercial transaction and plaintiff is not a money lender. The interest allowed on loan amount @ 6% per annum, as such, is reasonable.

In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the quantum of interest, I find no reason to interfere with the same.

No substantial question of law requiring determination arises in this appeal, which has no merits. Dismissed.