1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2942 of 2008. (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.1.2009 *** Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation .. Appellant VS. Mohinder Kumar .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. K.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay in re-filing the instant appeal condoned. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery of Rs.16,68,022.02 paise filed against the respondent with the averments that while posting as Inspector with the appellant Corporation, the respondent committed embezzlement, as a result there was shortage of wheat stock and articles total amounting to Rs. 13.93,452.02 paise as per report of the Committee and also claimed interest thereupon @ 18% per annum coming out to be Rs.3,38,920.80 paise. After the contest, the learned trial court, finding the respondent responsible for the aforesaid losses, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.13,93,042.02 paise with proportionate costs and also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of report of the Committee i.e. 29.8.1985 till the filing of the suit and further interest pendente lite at the same rate till the realization of the decreetal amount. In appeal preferred by the respondent, the learned Appellate Court though affirmed the findings of the learned trial court, however, disallowed the interest on the amount awarded to the appellant by the learned trial court w.e.f. 29.8.1985 till filing of the suit. Dis-satisfied with the same the plaintiff-appellant has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone 2 through the paper-book carefully. It emerges out from a perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned appellate court below that while ordering for deduction of the interest awarded for the period 29.8.1985 i.e. when the report of the Committee constituted to probe into the shortage of stock was filed, till the institution of the suit i.e. 15.6.1987, the Court below took into consideration that no interest for the period prior to the commencement of the suit is claimable either under an agreement, or usage of trade or under a statutory provision or under the Interest Act, for a sum certain notice is given, which was found missing in this case. From the said reasoning, it cannot be said that the approach of the learned appellate court in refusing the payment of interest for the period prior to the filing of the suit to the appellant-plaintiff is either illegal or perverse. No ground is made out to interfere with the findings of the learned appellate court, impugned in this regular second appeal. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 6,2009 Jiten