R.S.A No. 1026 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.2718-C of 2010 and R.S.A No. 1026 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : March 03, 2010 M/S Jit Rice and General Mills and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. M/S Avtar Singh Ranjit Singh Commission Agents, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.S.Boparai, 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.2718-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed subject all just exceptions. Persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are permitted to be impleaded as L.Rs of appellant No.2 who is stated to have died on 23.11.2009. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo. of parties. R.S.A No. 1026 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: R.S.A No.1026 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decree the suit of the respondent for recovery. The respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.14,48,971.65 on the ground that the appellants had not paid him for the entire paddy which had been purchased from him. Out of this amount, the principal amount was Rs.12,99,010.63 and an amount of Rs.1,49,961.02 was interest from 5.11.1987 to 29.10.1988 (the date of filing of the suit). In the plaint, the following prayers were made :- “ 22. That it is prayed that a decree for the recovery of Rs.14,48,971.65p, i.e Rs.12,99,010.63 as principal balance price of paddy supplied by the plaintiff firm to the defendants on the basis of Commission and as Commission Agents and Rs.1,49,961.02 as proportionate (Angkati) interest from 5.11.1987 to 29.10.1988 on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, may be passed with costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff firm and against the defendants. It is further prayed that an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree may be granted. It is further prayed that an interest at the rate 12% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation may be granted.” Both the Courts below accepted the transaction and the liability of the appellants and decreed the suit. However, even post decree interest R.S.A No. 1026 of 2009 (O&M) ::3:: was awarded @ 18% p.a. The following questions have been proposed :- “ a) Whether the courts below have misread the pleadings and the evidence and misreading of pleadings and evidence is a substantial question of law ? b) Whether there is a misreading of documentary evidence brought on record with respect to the rate of interest ? c) Whether the courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent without any documentary and oral evidence ? d) Whether there was any agreement between the parties with respect to the payment of interest @ 18% per annum and whether the same has been brought on record by the respondent and proved and if not proved whether the judgments are to be set aside on this ground alone ? e) Whether the approach of the courts below is erratic and perverse and whether the perversity of approach is a substantial question of law ?” Learned senior counsel for the appellants has fairly conceded that he has no arguments to raise on questions No. (a), (b) and (c). However, he has stressed only on question no. (d). It is his argument that since the respondent had specifically prayed for interest @ 12% p.a, it was not open for the Courts below to grant interest @ 18% p.a. Counsel for the respondent has argued that a perusal of the entire plaint would reveal that the respondent had consistently claimed 18% R.S.A No. 1026 of 2009 (O&M) ::4:: interest and the mentioning of the word `12%' was an obvious typing error. In my opinion, this argument is not correct. Had the respondent consciously demanded interest @ 18% p.a, there was no need to have three paragraphs of the prayer clause. As would be seen from the prayer clause, extracted above, the respondent himself treated the period prior to the decree and post decree separately. It cannot, therefore, be countenanced that the word `12%' mentioned in the third paragraph of the prayer clause is due to typographical error. Consequently, I hold that the post decree interest would only be 12% p.a. With this modification, the present appeal is dismissed with 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. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 03, 2010. JUDGE `kk'