^i°^( HIQH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR Elrst ARpeat No. 154 of 2006 ARDeilant Life Insurance Corporation of India, Piaintiff Through: Manager (L & HPF), Divlsionai Office, Pandari, Raipur (CG) Versus ResDondents? 1. Chhsdi Lai Agrawa! Aged a.bout 50 OofBndarits ysars, S/o Rsrn Gopsl Agrswsl, 2. Smt.Sarewatt Agrawai, Aged about 48 y'ssrs, W/o Chhcdi Lsi Ayraws! Gupta Gaii. Main Road Korba (CG) Presenf Address : Editor, Nsws Daiiy B/Iitan, Korba (C.G.'j (ADpsal under section 96 of Code of Civii Procediire) DB: Hon'bte Mr, T.P. Sharma, Hon'bie ?<1r. R.N.Chandrakar, J.J Present: Mr. .Mukesh Sharma, counsel for the appsilant. Mr.SsFijsy K.AQrsvwsl wlth rvlr.Soursbh ShsrrHS, counssl for the resoondents. ORDER (Passed OR 2nd Februsry, 2010) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment & dec.ree dated 2 3.2006 passed by the Additiona! District Judge, Korba, in Civil Suit No.3A/06, whereby iearnsd Additional District Judge has decreed the money part of suit with interest @. 8% per annum from the date offilina ofthe suit. 2. The resoondents have also fi!©dcross-obisction under Order 41 Rute 22 of the Code of Civi! Procedura, 1908 lin short 'the Code'1' in M.C.P.No,1869/2006.an.d chaSienaad that the Court below has not considered the entitlement of interest of the DiaintWaciDeilant gnd has oassed the decree for Dsvment @ 8% osr annym whi.ch is excessive a.nd arbitrarv, 3. We 'nave hsard tearned counse! for the parties, perused the judgment and decree imDuaned and record of the Court bel6w. 4- Undisputed facts reveai that respondent No.1 afte)' mortgaging his propsrti' hgs taken !oan from the appetlant. When respondant No,1 has not paid insts.llment and amouni of loan, suit for foreciosure of mortgage and recovery of monev wgs fited. ^s.as'-y'^ J"',-^^. 'i.. lte. —2^- 5. After affordind an opDortunifri/ of hearino to the Darties. tearned Aclditiona! District Judae has decreed the suit for recoverv of mQnev. but has not oassad a.nv decree for foreclosure of mortaa.a.e of the Drooertv. 6. The aRDe!'a-nt has not c.hallenced the deniai of foreclosurs of mortaaae in this appeal and has only chaiienged the avi/ard of !ow rate of interest and non-awardino. of advocate fee. inter a!ia, the resDondents have filed cross-oblection. While Dassina the iudament and decree imouaned, the Court has not caiculated the interest alraa.dv ciaimed bv the a.Doellant bv i.ncludina the same in DrinciDal amount. 7. !t is not o'isDirted that the Court betow has not nassed anv decree forsclosurs of mortga.ge ofthe property, therefore. the provisions relsiting to payment of interest as per Ordsr 34 Rule 11 of the Code wou'd not coma into play, The plaintiff/a.ppeliant has also not fiied any certificate of sdvocate fee for more than Rs.2600/-. therefora, the gDDeliant/Dlaintiff is not ent't'ec! for anv advocate fee for more than Rs.2600/-, The Court bslow ha.s framed the issue reia.tlna to entitlement of i.nterest vide issue No.2 and has dented the ciaim of comDound interest and has awarded interest ®.8 % Der annum. The findina of the Court be'ow is just, DroDsr and not hit bv th®orovjsions of Order 34 Rutell oftheCode. 8. A-s regaro's ths cross-objectlon is concernec!, the plaintiff/appellant was entiUed to calcuiate the interest and at the sa.me in the Drini'sDa! amount at the tjme of fiiina of the suit, Ths Diaintiff/aoDetlant ha.s cateulated the amount of intarest and 'nss added the same in the prjnclpai amount, for wh.teh he was entitled, Lsarned Court below has rightly awardsd the interest @ 8% per annum. 9. On ctose scrutiny of the evicience and arguments advanced on behalf of tho - parties, we do not find any iliegality in the juctgment and dec'ee impugned, 10. Consequently, the appeal and cross-objection fi!ed in M.C.P.1869/06 are ligble to be dlsmissed and are dismissed accordingly. Parties shai' bear their own costs, Advocats fses as ner schedule: 11. Decree be drav>'n up acco!'ding!y. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge