RSA No. 3766 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 11207-C of 2008 and RSA No. 3766 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: November 27, 2009 Vinod Goyal ...... Appellant Versus Parveen Saluja ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. CM No. 11207-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded, delay of 23 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 3766 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.1,23,092/-with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 31.3.97 till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether in the absence of the particulars and details of the RSA No. 3766 of 2008 (O&M) 2 cheque either in the pleadings or in the evidence, the suit of the plaintiff can be decreed on the basis of the said cheque? ii)Whether the suit can be decreed for an amount amounting to five times of the amount advanced? iii)Whether the impugned judgments and decree are hit by the principle of Damdupat? iv)Whether the grant of 12% interest p.a. without there being any pleadings with regard to the agreed rate of interest is justified as the same is hit by the provisions of Sec.34 of CPC? v) Whether the ld.Courts below have misread and misconstrued the evidence led by the parties? vi)Whether the impugned judgments and decree are base3d on surmises and conjectures? The only question argued is question No. (iv). Learned counsel has argued that the interest of 12% p.a. is excessive. I find that the transaction between the parties was admittedly a business transaction. In the circumstances the levy of interest of 12% p.a. cannot be termed to be excessive. Consequently the appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 27, 2009 sunita