THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Second Appeal No.1470 OF 2011 ORDER: This Second Appeal has been preferred by the sole defendant in the suit. The suit was instituted for recovery of money in a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on the foot of a promissory note with interest at the rate of 36% per annum. It is the case of the plaintiff that the appellant has borrowed the money for his urgent requirements on 27.6.2006 and executed a promissory note. But, however, he has failed to repay the loan amount. The appellant has contested the suit alleging that the promissory note is a forged and fabricated document brought into existence with the help of Sri M.Prabhakar and N.Subba Laxmi, from whom the defendant used to borrow certain amounts. It was further contended by the defendant that no consideration has actually passed to the defendant for the suit pro-note. In view of this divergent pleading, the trial court has framed the 1st issue as to whether the suit promissory note is true valid and binding on the defendant or not. PWs 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and documents Ex.A1, the suit pro-note was exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. One Sri Banoth Heera Lal was examined as PW21 and Sri M.Prabhakar was examined as PW3. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant himself was examined as DW1. But, he has not marked any documentary evidence on his side. The trial court has noticed that except suggesting to PWs 1 to 3 that the suit pro-note is a fabricated document, the defendant has not taken any steps to establish his plea in that regard. The defendant has also failed to establish any nexus between M.Prabhakar-PW3 and Smt. Subba Laxmi from whom the defendant had admitted certain financial transactions between them. However, the trial court has compared the admitted signature of the defendant available on the deposition of DW1 with the signature on the suit document Ex.A1 and arrived at a finding of fact that they are both one and the same in style and alignment. Consequently, the suit is decreed with 12% interest per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum till realization. Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial court, the appellant herein has preferred appeal AS No. 168 of 2009 on the file of the V Addl. District Judge (FTC), Khammam at Kothagudem. It was clearly noticed by both the courts below that PW2 has deposed that he is one of the attestors of the suit pro-note Ex.A1 while another individual by name Sri Ramesh is the other attestor. Thus, PW2, an independent individual has clearly corroborated the evidence of PW1 relating to the execution of the suit pro-note Ex.A1 by defendant and passing of consideration in that regard. PW2 without any ambiguity stated that the plaintiff gave money to the defendant. PW3, the scribe of the suit pro-note Ex.A1 was also examined. But, however, neither any useful contradictions nor any substantial information to discredit the suit transaction has been extracted during the cross-examination of PW2. Therefore, the appellate court has no hesitation to concur with the finding of fact of the trial court that the suit document is neither a forged one nor was that fabricated. However, the appellate court has noticed that the rate of interest agreed by both the parties under Ex.A1 viz., 36% was on a higher side, when compared to the lending rates of interest of various banks. Therefore, the appellate court considered it appropriate to scale down the rate of interest to 24% from 36%. The decree of the trial court has been modified to the extent of enhancing rate of interest from 12% to 24% from the date of suit till the date of decree. But, however, it retained the rate of interest thereafter at 6% per annum till realization. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the respondent – plaintiff was satisfied with the decree passed by the trial court and hence has not preferred any appeal nor did he prefer any cross-objections in the appeal AS No. 168 of 2009 preferred by the appellant herein. Without there being any appeal preferred by the respondent – plaintiff, the appellate court is not justified in enhancing the rate of interest from 12% to 24%, for the period between the date of institution of the suit till the decree. However, it will be appropriate to notice that a Memo has been filed on behalf of the appellant into the court today, which was signed by the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the appellant on 5.12.2001. It is prayed for by the appellant therein that that the decreetal amount at reduced rate of interest be permitted to be paid in ten (10) monthly instalments and he would be satisfied with the same. A copy of this Memo has also been served on the learned counsel for the respondent. While the learned counsel for the respondent would leave the issue of reduction of rate of interest to the discretion of this court, he would, however, suggest that let the decreetal amount be liquidated either in one lumpsum or in instalments on or before 30.6.2012. Though there is no substantial question of law raised in this second appeal, for it to be admitted, but nonetheless, the appellate court in my opinion has not exercised the discretion properly in enhancing the rate of interest from 12% to 24% for the period between the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree as ordered by the trial court. In my opinion, having come to the conclusion that demand of 36% of interest in the suit document Ex.A1 is too usurious and too high, the court should have exercised discretion carefully and properly. The suit is instituted in the year 2008. In the post 2008 period, there was a drastic fall in the rates of interest offered by the banks on fixed deposits. Even for long term deposits, 9% interest was not offered. Hence, taking judicial notice of the said fact, I consider it appropriate to direct the modification of the decree passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court by ordering for interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to be paid at the rate of 9% right from the date of the suit till the date of its realization along with costs. That would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, to that extent, the decree stands modified by ordering for interest at 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to be paid from the date of suit till the money is realized. Further, the appellant is granted time up to 30.6.2012 to liquidate the entire decreetal amount by depositing money to the credit of the suit in one or more number of instalments. Failure to deposit the decreetal amount to the credit of the suit either in one lumpsum or instalments would entitle the appellant to execute the decree any time on or after 1.7.2012. However, in the event, the appellant deposits the decreetal amount or part thereof to the credit of the suit, the same be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff decree holder without furnishing any security. The Second Appeal is disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 16th December 2011