IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2008 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 19, 2011 Phullan Rani and others .. Appellants Vs. Mehal Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate and Ms. Deepali Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4. A.N. Jindal, J CM No. 5932-C of 2011 Civil miscellaneous application is allowed and the deficiency of the court fee is ordered to be made good. RSA No. 2008 of 2009 (O&M) Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide judgment dated 6.1.2007 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the alternative relief by passing a decree for the recovery of `2,75,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the defendant No.1, from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff had filed an appeal claiming the relief of specific performance which was declined by the trial court. However, the first appellate court, refused to interfere in the judgment delivered by the trial court, on 18.11.2008. As such, this regular second appeal has been preferred by him. The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance and alternative relief for the recovery of `2,75,000/- along with interest on the basis of the agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Om Parkash, predecessor in interest of the plaintiff- appellant by the defendant No.1. On failure to perform his contract by the defendant, the appellants had filed the suit which was contested by the defendants. Both the courts below did not prefer to grant R.S.A. No. 2008 of 2009 (O&M) -2- *** relief of specific performance to the plaintiff, however, passed a decree for alternative relief in the aforesaid terms. Without assailing the judgment on merits, the learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the rate of interest as awarded by the courts below is not reasonable and is not in consonance of the prevalent rate of interest in the market. Having considered the contention, the same appears to have some substance. In the circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I reach the conclusion that the interest awarded by the courts below is not in consonance with the present prevalent market rate which requires some enhancement. In the result, this appeal is partly accepted, with the modification in the judgment that the respondents would be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of agreement till realization of the decretal amount. December 19, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge