R.S.A No. 2537 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No. 7432 C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 2537 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : February 17, 2010 Food Corporation of India, ...... Appellant (s) v. M/S Madan Roller Flour Mills & others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M.No.7432-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed and delay of 74 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.2537 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court refusing to grant interest to the appellant. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,41,618.46/- with a prayer for future interest also. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents conceded the suit in the following terms :- R.S.A No. 2537 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: “ Suit of the plaintiff for recovery ofRs.9,41,618.46 ps be decreed along with costs of Rs.22,000/-. However, defendants may be allowed to make payment of the decretal amount in easy instalments. We will be making payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each month. So we make a prayer that suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.9,41,618.46 ps plus Rs.22,000/- as costs be decreed....” The above statement was accepted and the suit was decreed on 14.9.1989. On 23.2.1991 i.e after almost 1.1/2 year, the appellant filed an appeal claiming that the trial Court erred in granting future interest. This appeal was dismissed, as mentioned above, by noticing that the statement suffered by the respondents was specific which was accepted by the appellant. Consequently, no ground arose for grant of future interest. The following questions have been proposed :- “ a) Whether the learned trial Court as well as Ist appellate Court have erred in law by not allowing the pendente-lite as well as future interest from the date of institution of the suit till actual realization of the amount from the respondents, once the suit was decreed in favour of the appellant ? b) Whether the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have erred in law by not allowing the pendente-lite as well as future interest once it was an admitted fact that the amount was recoverable from the respondents as on 2.9.1986 when part payment was made by the R.S.A No. 2537 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: respondents ? c) Whether grave and manifest justice has been caused to the appellant by both the courts below inspite of the fact that the amount was payable by the respondents ? d) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 14.09.1989 as well as judgment and decree dated 3.10.1989 are liable to be set aside/modified to the extent of interest payable i.e pendente-lite as well as future interest ?” In view of the finding that the appellant (rightly or wrongly or may be without understanding the implication) agreed to the specific statement of the respondents, the questions proposed do not arise. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 17, 2010. JUDGE `kk'