R.S.A. No. 2490 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2490 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.1.2009 Jeet Singh ....Appellant Versus M/s Mukandi Lal Ram Ji Lal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. T.M. Sayal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 17.4.2007 and 10.10.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery along with interest @ 12.5% stands decreed for sum of Rs.3,94,180/- (Rupees three lac ninty four thousand one hundred and eighty). The plaintiff brought the suit on the plea that loan was advanced to the appellant/defendant on pronote which he failed to repay. By way of concurrent finding of fact, the case of the plaintiff stands proved and the suit decreed as referred to above, with a future interest @ 12.5% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. This Court on December 11, 2008 was pleased to pass the R.S.A. No. 2490 of 2008 (O&M) -2- following order: - “This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,94,180/- along with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum on the basis of a pronote and a receipt alleged to have been executed by the appellant. Both the Courts have found that the appellant has not disputed his thumb impression. The only explanation given was that the appellant was an illiterate person who was earlier dealing with the respondent-firm and that when he stopped dealing with the said firm, it got annoyed and since it had some blank thumb marked papers of the appellant taken during the period of their dealings, it used the same to create a forged pronote and receipt. However, apart from the bald statement of the appellant no evidence was led with regard to this assertion. In the circumstances no infirmity can be found with the findings of the Courts below with regard to the liability of the appellant. However, in my opinion the rate of interest should be reduced. Notice of motion to the respondents on this limited ground for 28.1.2009. In the meantime the liability of the amount over and above 8% of the interest shall remain stayed.” Learned counsel for the parties agree that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal: - “Whether the rate of interest granted is exhorbitant and thus not sustainable in law in view of the present lending rate by the banks?” Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the rate of interest of the bank has been reduced, thus rate of interest as awarded cannot be sustained. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to R.S.A. No. 2490 of 2008 (O&M) -3- show as to what is rate of interest in commercial transactions. The only plea raised is that the learned Courts below have decreed the suit, on agreed rate of interest. It is not in dispute that rate of interest on lending has been reduced by commercial banks. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and the rate of interest is reduced to 9% till the date of decree on the principal amount, and future interest is reduced to 6% till realisation. With this modification, the judgments and decree under appeal are upheld. Appeal stands disposed of. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 28, 2009 R.S.