R.S.A.No. 2103 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2103 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.1.2011 Arvind Kaur ......Appellant Versus Kartar Kaur .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery, which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2009 and Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 3 and 4 of its judgment, are as under:- “3. The basic terrafirma with brevity is that the defendant and her husband were friendly with the R.S.A.No. 2103 of 2009 (O&M) 2 plaintiff. During course of these relationship, defendant took loan of ` 40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.12.1999 and they agreed to return the same within the period of three months with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In lieu of the loan, defendant has executed receipt in her own hand writing in the diary of plaintiff on 15.12.1999. After expiry of three months, for which defendant had taken loan, he was requested by the plaintiff to repay loan amount, but she had been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and failed to repay loan amount. Hence, this suit. 4. Having entered appearance, defendant filed written statement, inter alia, pleading that no such loan amount as alleged in the plaint has been received by the defendant. It seems that plaintiff has forged some document in the shape of a receipt to make a false claim against the defendant. No amount, whatsoever is due or payable by the defendant to plaintiff. No doubt, husband of defendant had some dealings with plaintiff, which have however, been cleared and squared up. The alleged writing is a forgery and fabrication committed by plaintiff in connivance and R.S.A.No. 2103 of 2009 (O&M) 3 conspiracy with her associates. Since, no such loan amount has been received by the defendant, question of any repayment of the same or of any interest did not arise. Denying all other averments specifically, it is prayed that suit of plaintiff may be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount, as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of interest as prayed for ?OPP. 3. Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred ?OPD. 4. Whether plaintiff has forged receipt and made false claim ?OPD. 5. Relief.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the rate of interest allowed by the trial Court on the amount liable to be recovered from the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below had erred in allowing interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount from the date the loan was advanced till the filing of the suit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant was not in a position to pay interest at such a high rate. R.S.A.No. 2103 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the loan was advanced to the defendant on 15.12.2009 but despite demands the defendant had failed to repay the loan. The Courts below had allowed interest to the plaintiff as claimed by her. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, plaintiff had advanced loan of ` 40,000/- to the appellant on 15.12.1999. However, the appellant had failed to repay the loan. The trial Court allowed interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount from 15.12.1999 till the filing of the suit and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to receive interest @ 6% per annum on principal amount from the date of decree till realisation. The rate of interest allowed by the trial Court was upheld by the appellate Court. The rate of interest allowed by the Courts below cannot be said to be on the higher side. Moreover, no interest has been allowed qua the period during which the suit filed by the plaintiff remained pending. Future interest has also been allowed on principal amount. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this court. Dismissed. (SABINA) January 05, 2011 JUDGE anita R.S.A.No. 2103 of 2009 (O&M) 5