IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 26, 2008 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Pankaj Hardware Store, Pataudi .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. A.K. Rathee, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for recovery filed by plaintiff-respondent was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon for an amount of Rs. 1,10,661/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The decision was challenged by the defendants- appellants by filing an appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated 27.2.2008 found no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants have filed the present second appeal in this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Regular Second Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 -2- The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that it had dealings with Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health Department, Sub Division Pataudi, District Gurgaon-defendant No. 3. It used to supply goods from time to time on settled terms and conditions. Orders were placed from time to time. On execution of the same, the defendants used to make payment to the plaintiff by way of drafts/account payee cheques. The plaintiff-firm had been maintaining the account books and all the amounts received from the defendants were duly entered in the same. From 2.7.1994 to 14.5.1997, the defendants purchased goods from the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 11,47,450.61 ps. An amount of Rs. 9,08,906.51 ps. was released. An amount of Rs. 2,38,545/- was outstanding as on 14.5.1997. The same was not paid by the defendants, inspite of repeated requests. Legal notice dated 12.6.1997 was served by the plaintiff upon the defendants. On receipt of the same, a draft for an amount of Rs. 8,608/- dated 3.7.1997 was received. It had also been agreed upon between the parties that if the payment was not made within a period of seven days, the plaintiff firm would be entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount due. In view of the goods released by the plaintiffs with the defendants, the plaintiff claimed interest only at the rate of 18% per annum and, thus, the interest amount had swelled to Rs. 29,654/- upto 30.9.1997. An amount of Rs. 2,68,198/- was, thus, due to the plaintiff from the Regular Second Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 -3- defendants. Accordingly, suit was filed for recovery of the said amount. On being served in the suit, the defendants filed their written statement, wherein they stated that only an amount of Rs. 1,63,521/- was outstanding against the defendants against the material purchased before 14.5.1997 and to clear the said amount, the defendants had approached the government to release funds of pending liabilities. After the filing of the suit, payments were made on four different occasions for a total amount of Rs. 93,355/- to the plaintiff-firm. It was only due to financial crunch and scarcity of funds that full amount could not be released. There was, thus, a balance of Rs. 70,167/- outstanding against the defendants which could be cleared within two/three months on receipt of LOC from the government. The defendants denied that there was any condition existing regarding payment of interest at the rate of 24% per annum. They, thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit. After going through the evidence led by the parties, learned trial Court held that only an amount of Rs. 1,10,661/- was outstanding to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for recovery of the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. As mentioned above, the said Regular Second Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 -4- judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was upheld in appeal by learned first appellate Court. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the defendants could make payment of the amount regarding the goods supplied only if the purchase orders had been sent to the plaintiff- firm after obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority. As the same was not done, the payment could not be released in favour of the plaintiff-firm. The defendants had been purchasing goods from the plaintiff firm. If the defendants were required to obtain sanction of the competent authority, it was their duty to do so before placing orders regarding purchase of goods. The plaintiff-firm was not under any obligation or duty to seek prior permission or sanction from the competent authority. Once an order had been placed by the defendants with the plaintiff-firm for supplying the goods, the latter was entitled to be paid the price of the goods supplied. It is then submitted that the plaintiff-firm did not produce the original bills in evidence and only photostat copies were brought on record. Though, the law required production of original bills by Regular Second Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 -5- the plaintiff firm, yet when documents Ex. P.1 to P.24 as well as other documents Ex. P.25 to P.28 were tendered in evidence, no objection was raised on behalf of the defendants. Even Pankaj Kumar, Proprietor of plaintiff-firm, while appearing as PW1, was not asked any question in his cross-examination so as to dispute the photostat copies of the various bills. In such a situation, no capital can be made by the defendants that original bills had not been produced. Last of all, it is argued that the rate of interest awarded by the learned lower Courts on the decretal amount was highly excessive. No case was made out for grant of the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The same needed to be drastically reduced. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that it was an agreed condition that if the outstanding amount was not paid within a period of seven days, it would be entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum. However, when the suit was filed, the plaintiff-firm claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Inspite of the same, learned trial Court, while keeping in view the rate of interest prevailing in the financial institutions at that time, awarded interest only at the rate of 9% per annum. This rate of interest awarded by learned trial Court was upheld in appeal by learned first appellate Court. No serious fault can be found with the grant of interest at the Regular Second Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 -6- rate of 9% per annum in favour of the plaintiff-firm for the amount outstanding against the defendants beyond the period of seven days from the date of the delivery of the goods. There is no material available on the record to show that the rate of interest as awarded by the learned lower Courts is on the excessive side. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the defendants. Concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. No illegality or infirmity can be found in the same. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants, do not arise for consideration. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 26, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO