IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 RFA.No. 302 of 2009() --------------------- OS.5/2002 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------- KURUVILA ABRAHAM,S/O.ABRAHAM, VARAMBATHU VEEDU,PUNALUR VILLAGE AND MURI. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------- T.RAJENDRAN NAIR,S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, ANANDA BHAVAN,KARAVALOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN FOR R1 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A. No. 302 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 in O.S. 5 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara, the defendant has come up in appeal. He suffered a decree for money. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the court below. 2. According to the plaintiff on 4.9.2001, the defendant borrowed Rs. Two Lakhs as loan from him agreeing to repay the same within two weeks. When the amount was not repaid within the stipulated time, plaintiff demanded the money. Defendant then issued Ext.A1 cheque dated 1.10.2000. The cheque was presented for encashment. It was returned for want of funds in the account of the defendant. Inspite of repeated demands, the amount was not repaid. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant denied the whole transaction. It is pointed out by him that Ext.A1 was infact given to the father in law R.F.A.302/2009. 2 of the plaintiff, who was running a chitty business. According to the defendant that person used to insist for blank cheques as security and one of the cheques issued by him has been misused. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. For the purpose of the suit in the court below P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked from the side of the plaintiffs. Defendants examined D.Ws. 1 and 2. On a consideration of the materials before it, the court below found that the plaintiff has proved his case and accordingly decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.2,12,250/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.2 Lakhs from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation of the amount. The said decree is assailed in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised only one point for consideration. According to learned counsel, the grant of interest at 18% pendente lite is extremely high and not warranted in the facts of the case. Attention of this court was drawn to the valuation portion, wherein it is shown that the principal sum is Rs.Two Lakhs R.F.A.302/2009. 3 and interest from 5.9.2001 to 5.9.2002 at 18% is Rs.12,000/-. Learned counsel pointed out that interest is calculated only at 6% and court fee has been paid on that basis. Apart from the said fact, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there was no justification in awarding such high rate of interest at 18% pendente lite. 6. There seems to be considerable force in the above submission. There is nothing in the plaint to show that the amount was received for commercial purpose and that there was any contract to pay interest at 18% per annum. So also, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the valuation portion even though interest at 18% was shown, interest was calculated at 6% for one year and court fee was paid on that basis. On that count also, there is no justification in awarding interest at 18%. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on Sec. 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is unfounded. The suit is not based on the cheque but on an independent debt. 7. In the decision reported in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (IR 2001 SC 3095) levy of interest considerably at high rate R.F.A.302/2009. 4 has been deprecated. Going by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure discretion vests with the court regarding the grant of interest pendente lite and future interest. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that there was no justification in granting pendente lite interest at 18%. It is felt that pendente lite interest needs to have been awarded at 6% only. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and a modified decree is passed enabling the plaintiff to recover Rs.2,12,250/-, with interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit till realisation, from the defendant personally and from his assets. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.