In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 2650 of 2007 Date of decision: March 23, 2009 Pardeep Kumar .. Appellant Vs. Parveen Kumar Mahajan .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J This Regular Second Appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 11.9.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the first appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant (herein referred as 'the defendant') against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurdaspur decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum during the pendency of the suit and also future interest @ 6% per annum. The substantial question of law involved in this case is as under :- “Whether the impugned judgment is based on misreading of evidence and whether the court could interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in awarding the interest.” In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff-respondent (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') is that he advanced a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the defendant in September, 1999 which he promised to repay within twenty-two installments. The defendant issued cheque bearing NO.QVN-676162 worth Rs.60,000/- on 18.1.2000 of Punjab National Bank. Since the cheque was dishonoured, the present suit for recovery was filed. R.S.A. No. 2650 of 2007 -2- *** The defendant contested the suit alleging that he did not take any loan in September, 1999 but he had taken a loan of Rs.60,000/- on 19.3.1998, which was returned by him along with interest in 22 monthly installments of Rs.3200/- each. However, he had issued the cheque on 18.1.2000 worth Rs.60,000/- only as a security for repayment of the loan and this cheque has been misused by the plaintiff. Replication was also filed and following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.60,000/-?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, then whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest. If so, at what rate? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the defendant is entitled to claim specific costs under Section 35 (a) CPC? OPD 6. Relief. The trial court decided issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and issues No.3 and 5 against the defendant, and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it is observed that the advancement of loan of Rs.60,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant stand fully established. The defendant has not denied having received the loan but he has stated that it was taken by him on 19.3.1998. Notwithstanding the fact that a debit and credit entry is found mentioned in the bank account on 19.3.1998 but that does not nullify the advancement of loan in the month of September, 1999, rather it goes to show that the plaintiff and the defendant had dealings since long. The story with regard to the handing over the cheque on account of security stand belied by the averments made by the defendant himself. Issuing of cheque of the same amount after one year of the receipt of the loan when he was already paying the money in installments lacks logic. R.S.A. No. 2650 of 2007 -3- *** As regards the interest, the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant was to pay interest @ 18% per annum but the trial court in its discretion has awarded interest @ 12% per annum. However, the trial court has awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of passing of the decree and future interest @ 6% per annum. No interference in this judicious discretion exercised by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur is called for. Consequently, the instant appeal being unmerited is dismissed. March 23, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge