R.S.A No. 1632 of 1986(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A No. 1632 of 1986(O&M) Date of decision:- July 14th, 2011 M/s Savrupson Cold Storage through Kanwar Rajinder Singh & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Union Bank of India ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate, for the appellants. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for redemption of plot No.72-72A situated in village Boot, Jalandhar and land situated in 4-R- B, Tehsil Padampur, District Ganga Nagar Rajasthan, without any payment or on payment of amount found due, if any on the ground that these properties were mortgaged with the respondent/defendant- Bank by way of equitable mortgage by deposit of the title deeds at the time of obtaining the loan, which was to the tune of `4,40,018/- and that the defendant-bank is not entitled to any interest from 18.12.1976 onwards and that they are willing and ready to pay the amount, which may be found due from them to the defendant-bank. In the written statement, the defendant admitted that the property in dispute was mortgaged as security for the repayment of the loan. It pleaded that the plaintiffs are liable to pay `3,79,000.24 along with future interest before they can seek the redemption of this property. It also resisted R.S.A No. 1632 of 1986(O&M) -2- the suit on the grounds that the same was not maintainable, was not properly instituted, was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee, was barred by time and the Civil Courts at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same and the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and they were called upon to produce their evidence. After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.1982, and passed a preliminary decree for redemption of the mortgaged property subject to the payment of `3,11,931/-, including the interest and the plaintiffs were directed to deposit that amount along with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum in the Court within a period of six months from the date of passing of the decree. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs and they challenged that part of the decree vide which they were directed to deposit `3,11,931/- along with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.1986 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed. The present second appeal has been preferred only against that part of the decree which was challenged before the first Appellate Court. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that as per the documents executed in favour of the defendant-bank the interest on the amount of loan at the rate of 4% over and above the bank rate is subject to minimum of 9% per annum. The defendant failed to produce an evidence regarding the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time and a such the interest R.S.A No. 1632 of 1986(O&M) -3- could have been allowed only at the rate of 9% per annum and the amount payable for discharging the debt was to be calculated by taking into consideration the rate of interest 9% per annum. He further submitted that the future interest could not have been allowed at the rate of 12% per annum, in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. According to him to that extent the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, is liable to modified. The questions raised in this second appeal are the disputed questions of fact on which concurrent findings have been recorded by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court and cannot be stated to be a disputed questions of law. The future interest under Section 34 C.P.C could have been allowed at the rate more then 6% per annum as the tranaction between the parties was a commercial transaction. The appeal is, therefore, not competent and the same is dismissed. The records be returned forthwith. July 14th, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge