R.S.A.No. 304 of 1990 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No. 304 of 1990 Date of decision: 25.11.2011. B.D.Kalia Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA. Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Ankur Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. ***** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J (ORAL). The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated 12.10.1989, wherein the decree dated 28.4.1987 has been modified to the extent of the rate of interest which has been awarded at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum awarded by the Trial Court. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction pleading that he had joined as Senior Clerk on 13.12.1946 and promoted as Assistant on 16.8.1949, as Deputy Superintendent on 27.11.1961 and finally as Superintendent on 25.1.1971 and retired on 31.10.1979. The case of the plaintiff was that he is entitled for selection grade as Superintendent w.e.f. 12.10.1976, which was not granted and he had to file a civil suit which was decreed on 24.1.1984 and in pursuance of the said decree arrears were paid to him and these dues should have been R.S.A.No. 304 of 1990 -2- **** paid to him at the time of his retirement on 31.10.1979. The suit was contested by the State on the ground that there was no order of interest in the earlier judgment and decree dated 24.1.1984. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff was entitled to interest upon the amount since the same had been wrongly & unjustifiably deprived to the plaintiff and accordingly the Trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendants to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount mentioned in para 1 of the judgment from the date the same beccame payable to the plaintiff till the same were actually paid to him. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree, the State of Punjab preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh which has been allowed to the extent that the rate of interest has been modified at 6% per annum on the amount mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment from the date the same became due till actual payment. The present appeal, thus, has been filed against modification on the point of reduction in interest. The appeal was ordered to be admitted and heard with Regular Second Appeal No.2016 of 1989 vide order dated 7.3.1990. However, a perusal of the records of the said appeal go on to show that the present appeal has no connection with the said Regular Second Appeal which arises out of a different suit altogether. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed for staying the recovery of the amount which the State was effecting from the appellant. This Court vide order dated 6.11.1990 noticed that the plaintiff had recovered the amount at the rate of 12% interest but there was no ground to stay the restitution which was being done by the State of Punjab. Thus, apparently the State seems to have recovered the difference which it R.S.A.No. 304 of 1990 -3- **** had paid in execution of the judgment of the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court has given the following reasons for reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 6% per annum:- “Coming to the rate of interest, the plaintiff claimed it @ 18% p.a. whereas the learned Trial Court allowed it @ 12% p.a. Under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, guide-line regarding the rate of interest have been laid down and as a rule, unless the case falls under the Proviso below Section 34, interest at the rate not exceeding 6% p.a. can be allowed. On that basis I would allow interest to the plaintiff @ 6% p.a. on the amounts as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment from the dates these became due till the actual payment.” The discretion of the Court to award interest has not to be interferred with in Regular Second Appeal since the same does not amount to any substantial question of law, which would warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. November 25, 2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE R.S.A.No. 304 of 1990 -4- ****