IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1967 of 2007 Date of decision: 3rd November, 2008 Jai Bhagwan … Appellant Versus Debi Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Despite service, nobody has caused appearance for respondent No.1 to 4. In the present regular second appeal, on 12th November, 2007, notice of motion was issued and the following order was passed: “Present: Mr. C.B.Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that interest granted is highly excessive as there was no agreement between the parties qua payment of interest. Notice of motion for 12.2.2008.” On February 12, 2008, it was noticed that respondent No.1 to 4 have been served but none has caused appearance on their behalf. Case was fixed for service of respondent No.5. Counsel for the appellant states that the respondent No.5 is a proforma party and for hearing, service upon respondent No.5 is not necessary. In the present case, respondents-plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the appellant praying therein that Smt.Bharpai and Chhedi Lal had Regular Second Appeal No.1967 of 2007 executed an agreement to sell on 20th December, 1995 through appellant, as their attorney, for the sale of land measuring 24 kanals 16 marlas situated in village Sarsa, Tehsil and District Bhiwani @ Rs.40,000/- per killa. It was further averred that appellant had received Rs.55,000/- as earnest money. As per the agreement to sell, sale deed was to be executed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs on or before 15th June, 1996. It was stated in the agreement that failure on the part of the appellant to execute the sale deed, shall make him liable to pay double the amount of earnest money. It was further pleaded that on 14th June, 1996, a day before the date fixed for execution of the sale deed, respondents-plaintiffs were present along with the entire amount in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bhiwani for execution of the sale deed as 15th and 16th June, 1996 were holidays. The appellant had not appeared, therefore, respondents-plaintiffs got themselves marked present before the Sub-Registrar, Bhiwani. Respondents-plaintiffs also caused their appearance on the next working day, i.e. on 17th June, 1996, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bhiwani. Notice of the suit was issued. Notice of the suit was served. Appellant-defendant appeared, raised many preliminary objections and also denied execution of the agreement to sell dated 20th December, 1995. The trial Court had drawn issues. Evidence was led. The Court came to the conclusion that the agreement mark ‘A’ was executed by the appellant and he had received the amount of Rs.55,000/-. The suit was partly decreed and it was held that respondents-plaintiffs were entitled to recover Rs.55,000/- along with interest @ 18 percent per annum from the date of the execution of the agreement to sell till the realization of the decretal amount. Aggrieved against the same, appellant had filed an appeal before the Court of District Judge, Bhiwani, which was decided by 2 Regular Second Appeal No.1967 of 2007 Additional District Judge, Bhiwani on 6th January, 2007. Additional District Judge, Bhiwani concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. Mr. C.B. Kaushik appearing for the appellant-defendant states that it is nowhere mentioned in the agreement that interest @ 18 percent per annum shall be paid by the appellant. He further states that as per the agreement double the amount was to be paid, therefore the courts below were not justified in awarding interest @ 18 percent per annum, which is excessive. At the stage of issuing notice of motion, counsel had confined his contention regarding the interest granted by the trial Court and it was submitted that interest was excessive. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court, since this Court cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. However, there is merit in the contention that the interest awarded was highly excessive. Therefore, the orders of the two courts below are modified to the extent that the defendant shall only be entitled to interest @ 6 percent per annum. Modification to this extent be carried out in the decree that the plaintiff to the suit shall be entitled to recovery of Rs.55,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of execution of the agreement to sell till realization of the decretal amount. With these modifications, present appeal is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 03, 2008 rps 3