RSA No.2849 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2849 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.08.2011 Shri Subhash Goel ..... Appellant Versus Sheela Rekhan ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) On November 23, 2010, a Coordinate Bench had passed the following order:- "C.M. No.8590-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No.2849 of 2010 Defendant Subhash Goel having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below is in second appeal. According to version of plaintiff-respondent, she advanced loan of Rs.45,000/- to the defendant-appellant on 16.9.1996 and the defendant executed pronote and receipt for the same but did not pay the loan amount and interest thereon. The defendant's version is that he had sold some machinery to plaintiff's husband for Rs.5,45,000/-, out of which plaintiff's husband paid Rs.5,00,000/- by way of two cheques and balance amount of Rs.45,000/- was to be paid for which signatures of defendant were obtained on blank paper as RSA No.2849 of 2010 (O&M) -2- advance receipt, which was converted into pronote in question. This stand of the defendant is per se unbelievable. It is inherently and intrinsically unreliable that the defendant without getting his alleged due amount affixed signatures on blank paper. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that plaintiff had also filed a suit against M/s. Shiv Steel Rolling Mill and its partners including the defendant and there is no reason why plaintiff advanced the instant loan if defendant's firm was already defaulter. The contention is devoid of merit, because the said suit, as per submission of counsel for the appellant, was also instituted in the year 1998, whereas the loan in question involved in the present lis was advanced on 16.09.96. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below regarding advancement of loan. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises for determination regarding the same in the instant second appeal. Learned counsel next contended that courts below have allowed interest for pre-suit period at highly excessive rate of 3% per month. This contention merits consideration. Notice limited to this extent be issued to respondents for February 15, 2011. Meanwhile if the defendant-appellant pays principal amount of Rs.45,000/- with interest thereon @ 15% per annum since the date of advancement of loan till filing of suit and further interest as awarded by the lower appellate Court @ 6% since the date of filing of suit till payment, along with costs of the Courts below, recovery of the balance decretal amount shall remain stayed." Counsel for the appellant submits that the notice was issued only on a short ground that the plaintiff cannot charge interest @36% per annum which is highly excessive. RSA No.2849 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Counsel for the respondent has stated that it was commercial transaction and hence appellant-defendant was liable to pay interest @36% per annum. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the interest sought to be charged by the plaintiff-respondent and granted by the Court @3% per month for the pre-suit period is highly excessive and not justifiable. Accordingly, as per the order dated November 23, 2010, the impugned decree is modified to the extent that the defendant appellant shall pay principal amount of Rs.45,000/- with interest thereupon @15% per annum from the date of advancement of the loan till filing of the suit and thereafter the amount should be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum till the date of payment as awarded by the Lower Appellate Court. The appellant shall also pay costs of the Courts below. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 23.08.2011 JUDGE manju