RSA No.346 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.346 of 2006 Date of decision : 29-7-2009 Sukhdev ....Appellant VERSUS Chhote Lal and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgments and decrees dated 22-05-2001 and 19-09-2005, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Narnaul and Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby the suit filed by the respondents has been decreed and the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.28,000/-, with interest @1.56% per month. The appellant contested the suit by asserting that he had never taken any loan, much less the amount claimed in the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.28,000/- with interest @Rs.1.56% per month from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated RSA No.346 of 2006 -2- 19-09-2005, the Additional District Judge, Narnaul partly allowed the appeal and reduced the future interest to 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. The sole argument raised by counsel for the appellant is that it should be clarified that the future interest awarded is simple in nature as the respondents assert that the interest has to be compounded. Counsel for the respondents states that the aforementioned argument is entirely misplaced as the judgment passed by the Addl. District Judge, Narnaul speaks and does not require the clarification. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and find no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below as no question of law much less the substantial question of law arises for adjudication. The appellant's submission that it should be clarified that the future interest @6% per annum is simple is misplaced. Where a decree is silent as to the nature of the interest, interest so awarded is simple. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed. (RAJIVE BHALLA) 29-07-2009 JUDGE manju