C.M.No.11335-C of 2011 in RSA No.2319 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.11335-C of 2011 in RSA No.2319 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 29, 2011 Amar Singh .....Appellant v. Brij Bhushan .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11335-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Order dated 5.9.2011 dismissing the appeal in default is recalled. Registry is directed to register the appeal at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.6399-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 54 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.no.6400-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.2319 of 2011 C.M.No.11335-C of 2011 in RSA No.2319 of 2011(O&M) -2- The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 1.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 30.4.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff for recovery of `45,290/- was decreed with cost. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed this suit for recovery on the ground that he is a commission agent and that appellant-defendant being agriculturist used to sell his agricultural produce at his shop and hence there was a running account being maintained by respondent-plaintiff in due course of business. Further plea is that on 3.5.2005, appellant- defendant settled the account and an amount of `31,000/- were found due against him, which was admitted by him to be correct and he signed the same in token of correctness of the same and promised to pay the same alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. However, when no such amount was paid, the present suit was filed for recovery of `45,920/-, i.e., `31,000/- as principal and `14,920/- as interest upto 21.5.2007. On notice being issued, appellant-defendant contested the suit by taking the plea that his signatures/thumb impressions were obtained on the blank papers in the Bahi, which was maintained by the plaintiff. However, he has admitted that an account was opened in his name in the books of respondent-plaintiff-firm for the purpose of transactions. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned C.M.No.11335-C of 2011 in RSA No.2319 of 2011(O&M) -3- trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree by the present appellant-defendant, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant is that the rate of interest charged by respondent-plaintiff is on the higher side. However, the rate of interest has been charged by respondent- plaintiff as per the agreement between the parties. So far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the same has been awarded by the Courts below only @6% per annum. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 29.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge