IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3775 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2010 Smt. Sona Devi ......Appellant(s) Versus Registered Proprietorship firm ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.11210-C of 2010 There is a delay of 52 days in filing the present appeal. It has been stated that the appellant is an old widow and due to her old age, she could not travel a long distance and contacted his counsel and came to know that the limitation period had already expired and a delay of 52 days occurred. The aforesaid application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 52 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.11209-C of 2010 There is a delay of 273 days in refiling this appeal. It has been explained that the clerk of the counsel after obtaining the paper book of the appeal from the Registry for removal of objections had put the same in some other brief which could be detected later on and in this process, the delay of 273 days occurred. RSA No.3775 of 2010(O&M) -2- Though the aforesaid application is not supported by any affidavit yet keeping in view the fact that this appeal is being decided on merits, the delay of 273 days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM No.11211-C of 2010 CM is declined as the document sought to be placed on record is inadmissible in evidence and the same was not taken into consideration by the Courts below. RSA No.3775 of 2010(O&M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed against her along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit and future interest @ 10% per annum till realisation of the decretal amount. The only contention raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that future interest @ 10% per annum after passing of the impugned judgment and decrees cannot be allowed in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code as under the aforesaid provisions, the rate of interest cannot exceed 6% per annum. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is without any merit. The plea as raised before this Court was neither pleaded nor raised by the appellant before the trial Court regarding the interest despite the fact that the question of interest was covered under issue No.1. No doubt the appellant raised the question before the Lower Appellate Court by stating that there was no agreement between the parties to pay interest @ 18% per annum as claimed by the plaintiff- respondent. However, neither the appellant has pleaded this fact in his written statement nor there is any evidence on record and therefore, it is RSA No.3775 of 2010(O&M) -3- not permissible to allow him to raise the aforesaid question at this stage in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and another 2008 (13) JT SC 255. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed in limine. September 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE