Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2008 Date of decision : April 29, 2010 Jitender alias Jitu ....Appellant versus Narender ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. DS Malik, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. MS Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Jitender alias Jitu defendant has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent Narender filed suit for recovery of Rs 1,54,000/- against the defendant-appellant alleging that on 25.12.1997, the defendant borrowed Rs 90,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the amount with interest @ 2% per month but the defendant failed to pay any amount. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed Rs 90,000/- as principal amount and Rs 64,000/- as interest for pre suit period. The defendant in his written statement raised various Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2008 -2- preliminary objections and controverted the plaint allegations. It was denied that he borrowed any amount or executed any pronote and receipt. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2005 decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs 1,54,000/- with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant was disposed of by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2007 thereby slightly modifying judgment and decree of the trial court to the extent that future interest from the date of decree of the trial court till recovery shall be @ 6% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that statements of plaintiff Narender as PW1 and his witness Rajesh PW2 are contradictory. It was pointed out that the plaintiff denied the suggestion that the defendant had written in his own hand on the pronote that he had received the amount of Rs 90,000/- whereas Rajesh PW2 admitted the said suggestion as correct. However, merely on the basis of this contradiction, the entire case of the plaintiff cannot be thrown away. The witnesses were examined almost five years after the execution of the pronote. Such minor contradictions or discrepancies are very natural with the lapse of such a long period. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2008 -3- plaintiff stated that Rajesh was not present when the pronote was scribed but Rajesh stated that he was present when the loan amount was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff. However, this is not a contradiction. The plaintiff has not denied the presence of Rajesh at the time of payment of loan amount by plaintiff to defendant. In addition to the aforesaid, both the courts have appreciated the evidence and arrived at concurrent finding against the defendant. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. However, it has to be noticed that the suit has been decreed for the entire suit amount including interest @ 2% per month for pre suit period. The said rate of interest appears to be a bit excessive. The lower appellate court has observed that in 1997 when the loan was advanced till 2000 when the suit was filed, even bank rates were high. However, even then interest @ 2% per month for pre suit period appears to be a bit excessive. Keeping in view the aforesaid observation of the lower appellate court and the prevalent bank rate in those days, I am of the considered opinion that interest for pre suit period should be awarded @1.5% per month. However, pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum and future interest @6% per annum do not require any reduction or modification. Accordingly, interest amount for pre suit period for 36 months would come to Rs 48,600/- and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff shall stand decreed for Rs 1,38,600/- with proportionate costs Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2008 -4- throughout and with pendente lite interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till decree of the trial court and future interest @6% from the date of decree of the trial court till recovery. Judgments and decrees of the courts below stand modified to the aforesaid extent and the instant second appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 29, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'