RSA No. 1312 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 1312 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: March 29,2010 Food Corporation of India and others ..Appellants Versus Nand Gopal ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present: Mr. K.K.Gupta Advocate for the appellants. ... L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral) C.M.No.3935-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, delay of 197 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 1312 of 2010 Defendants have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal. Respondent Nand Gopal filed suit against the defendants( Food Corporation of India and its officers) for recovery of Rs. 94,842.52. The plaintiff is a Commission Agent. Defendants procured wheat through the shop of the plaintiff. Defendants made payment of purchase price of the wheat only but did not pay the plaintiff's commission amount of Rs.43,565.25 and labour charges of Rs. 8,537.06 spent by the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff also claimed Rs. 33,676/- as outstanding interest amount. Since amount of wheat itself was also paid belatedly, plaintiff claimed Rs. 9063.91 as interest thereon. Defendants admitted purchase of the wheat and payment made therefor. However, the defendants pleaded that there was shortage of 58 Qtl. 30 Kg. in the quantity of wheat supplied by the plaintiff for which letter dated RSA No. 1312 of 2010(O&M) 2 15.11.2000 was issued to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that payment of bills submitted by the plaintiff had been made and the plaintiff had not submitted bills for the remaining amount. Payments could be made after submitting the bills. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam vide judgment and decree dated 1.8.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff partly for recovery of Rs. 18,288.31 with interest thereon @ 6 % P.A. from due date till payment. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 52,102.31Ps. the amount of commission and labour charges as claimed by the plaintiff, but out of it a sum of Rs. 33,814/- was deducted on account of alleged shortage of wheat at the rate of Rs. 580/- per qtl. Plaintiff preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Learned District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 3.6.2009 allowed the appeal to the extent that the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.52,102.31 (the entire principal amount of commission and labour charges claimed by the plaintiff) along with interest thereon @ 12 % P.A. from due date till passing of the decree by the trial Court and future interest @ 6 % P.A. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that defendants have already paid the decretal amount as per judgment and decree of the trial Court but the same has not been reduced by the lower Appellate Court. The contention is deposed with the clarification that the amount if any paid by the defendants pursuant to decree of the trial Court shall obviously be adjustable out of the amount for which the lower Appellate Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that interest at the rate of 12 % P.A. awarded by the lower Appellate Court is excessive because the defendants are not carrying on commercial activities and therefore, interest exceeding 6 % P.A. should not have been awarded in view of RSA No. 1312 of 2010(O&M) 3 Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code(for short “CPC”). This contention has no merit Under Section 34 CPC, the court has discretion regarding rate of interest for pre suit period as well as period pendente lite and only future interest from the date of decree of the trial Court onwards cannot exceed 6 % P.A. if the transaction is not commercial. In the instant case, the lower Appellate Court has rightly exercised discretion by awarding interest @ 12 % P.A. for pre-suit period and for pendente lite period whereas future interest has been awarded @ 6 % P.A. only as permissible under Section 34 C.P.C. Interest @ 12 % p.a. cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court on this aspect. No other argument has been raised before me on behalf of the appellant. The appeal does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine being devoid of merit. March 29, 2010 (L.N.MITTAL) nk JUDGE