IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2492 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 09, 2008 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Smt. Shanti Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. A.K. Rathee, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Sameer Rathore, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs-respondents that they were entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the payment made by defendants-appellants was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon. They were granted the said benefit from the date of judgment and decree dated 12.8.1997 till date of the payment of Rs. 29,116/-. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants filed an appeal, which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Gurgaon. They have further come up in second appeal before this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Regular Second Appeal No. 2492 of 2007 For the reason that Tulsi Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-respondents was forced to file a civil suit in the year 1989 to get him declared as regularized with effect from the date his juniors were regularized, which suit was decreed on 19.8.1992 and the appeal filed by the defendants against the same was dismissed on 12.8.1997 and finally it was in the year 2001 that an amount of Rs. 29,116/- was paid, but by that time, Tulsi Dass had expired and, therefore, it was paid to the plaintiffs, the learned Courts below were justified in taking a strict view in awarding interest to them at the rate of 18% per annum. Firstly, it was Tulsi Dass, who was left high and dry till his death in February 1993 and, thereafter, his children till the year 2001 when the payment was finally made. It was a case of gross mis-conduct and negligence on the part of the defendants in making the payment of the amount, which was legally due. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the rate of 18% awarded as interest is on the excessive side and it needs to be drastically reduced. Though, at present the rate of interest hovers around 9%, yet in the case in hand, it was year 1992 when civil suit filed by Tulsi Dass was decreed. In those days, the rate of interest used to be around 18%. Before he could reap the fruits of the decree, he died. Instead of complying with the decree, the defendants challenged it by filing an appeal which was finally dismissed on 12.8.1997. -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2492 of 2007 Though, the plaintiffs had claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of passing of judgment and decree, i.e. 9.8.1992, yet learned trial Court granted them the benefit with effect from 12.8.1997 when the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by learned counsel for the appellants, arise for determination. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 09, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO -3-