R.S.A No. 3164 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3164 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : October 23, 2009 Ranger Breweries Limited & another, ...... Appellant (s) v. The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the respondent. *** 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.9407-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.3164 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of Rs.2,33,759/- along with future interest. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ a) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent can be dismissed being time R.S.A No. 3164 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: barred as the same was filed on 15.1.1999 when the cause of action arises on 13.5.1995 ? b) Whether a specific objection as to limitation is not raised, can court has a jurisdiction to pass a decree ? c) Whether the Courts at Rewari have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present appeal when a specific clause in the purchase order has been mentioned regarding the jurisdiction of Courts at Delhi, if any dispute arises between the parties ? While arguing question No.(a), learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the plea of limitation was discarded only on the ground that the same was not taken in the preliminary issue. However, I find that the lower appellate Court disregarded the plea of limitation not only on the ground of its having not been taken in the preliminary issue but also on the ground that since the last payment was made on 22.7.1997, the suit filed on 15.1.1999 could not be held to be barred. In my opinion, no infirmity can be found with the above reasoning. No arguments have been raised on questions No.(b) and (c). However, learned counsel for the appellant has raised another question of law viz. whether future interest could at all be awarded in the present case. It is his argument that the suit was filed admittedly for the amount of unpaid interest and, thus, as per Section 34 of the C.P.C, no interest could be levied on this amount, as under Section 34 of the C.P.C, interest can be levied only on the principle sum R.S.A No. 3164 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: adjudged. In my opinion, in the present case no doubt the suit was filed for non payment of necessary interest but when it was found that this amount was legally due from the appellant to the respondent, it was to be considered as `principle sum adjudged'. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that there was no stipulation regarding payment of interest in the contract. With regard to this, learned counsel has stated that the lower appellate Court has mentioned in para 18 of its judgment that there was a stipulation in the bills regarding liability to pay interest at the bank rate. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that no details have been mentioned as to how the interest has been calculated to Rs.2,33,759/-. However, I find in para 12 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court that a reference has been made to the details as per which the interest has been calculated. Consequently, the questions of law argued have to be answered against the appellant. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. October 23, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) kk JUDGE