R. S. A. No. 570 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 570 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 04, 2010 Jagdish alias Jagan .... Appellant Vs. Jora Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Jagdish alias Jagan has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent-plaintiff Jora Singh filed suit against appellant- defendant for recovery of Rs.60,000/- alleging that the defendant, on 19.07.2002, borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same. Defendant, however, failed to repay the amount in spite of request and notice. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of R. S. A. No. 570 of 2009 2 Rs.60,000/- i.e. Rs.35,000/- as principal amount and Rs.25,000/- as interest @ 2% per month since the date of loan till the filing of the suit. The defendant denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having taken any loan or having executed pronote or receipt. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant had jointly purchased a tractor and later on, the defendant paid the total amount of the tractor to the plaintiff by settlement and the matter was resolved. The plaintiff might have fabricated thumb impressions of the defendant on blank papers. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 12.5% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.35,000/- from the date of institution of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been decided by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.2008, whereby future interest on the principal amount has been reduced to 6% per annum, while maintaining the judgment and decree of the trial court on other aspects. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Both the courts below have come to concurrent finding that R. S. A. No. 570 of 2009 3 defendant borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but failed to pay the said amount with interest. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the pronote is unstamped and therefore, no decree could be passed on the basis of unstamped pronote. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Firm Gobind Ram Dayal Dass and Co. Yamunanagar vs. Sita Devi alias Sita Rani Saluja reported as 1976 The Punjab Law Reporter 913. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent contended that pronote was admitted in evidence without any objection from the defendant regarding the pronote being unstamped and therefore, in view of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short – the Act), admissibility of the pronote in evidence cannot now be called in question. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is correct that pronote is unstamped. It does not bear any revenue stamp, although receipt bears proper revenue stamp. However, if defendant had taken objection to the admissibility of the pronote in evidence on the ground of being unstamped, then no decree on the basis of unstamped pronote could be passed. The defendant, however, did not take any such objection, when the pronote was admitted in evidence. In fact, in R. S. A. No. 570 of 2009 4 trial court, no such objection was raised at any stage. In view of Section 36 of the Act, admissibility of the pronote in evidence cannot be called in question at appellate stage, when no objection to its admissibility on the ground of being unstamped was raised when the pronote was admitted in evidence. Language of Section 36 of the Act is very unambiguous and admits of no two interpretations. In view of said mandatory provision, the contention now being raised by counsel for the defendant-appellant cannot be accepted. However, another substantial question of law arises for determination in instant second appeal, as under :- “Whether interest at the rate of 2% per month for pre-suit period is excessive ?” The plaintiff claimed interest amount of Rs.25,000/- for three years on loan amount of Rs.35,000/-. The interest was claimed @ 2% per month, which is the agreed rate of interest. However, if the agreed rate of interest is excessive, Court has ample power to reduce the same and to award interest at reasonable rate. In the instant case, the loan was advanced on 19.07.2002, when the interest rates had fallen considerably. Consequently, interest @ 2% per month claimed by the plaintiff and allowed by the courts below for pre-suit period is highly excessive and unreasonable and deserves to be reduced to a reasonable rate. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the prevailing market rate of interest in R. S. A. No. 570 of 2009 5 those days, interest @ 15% per annum would be appropriate and reasonable rate of interest for pre-suit period i.e. since 19.07.2002 – the date of pronote till 18.07.2005 – the date of filing of suit. Pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till date of decree of the trial court would be just and appropriate, whereas future interest from the date of decree of trial court till recovery has to be @ 6% per annum, in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as future interest cannot exceed 6% per annum in view of said provision except in case of commercial transaction. In the instant case, the loan in question was not a commercial transaction and therefore, future interest cannot exceed 6% per annum. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed partly and judgments and decrees of the courts below are modified and plaintiff's suit is decreed for recovery of Rs.35,000/- along with interest thereon @ 15% per annum since 19.07.2002 – the date of advancement of loan till 18.07.2005 – the date of filing of suit and pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum since the date of filing of suit till 12.09.2007 – the date of decree of the trial court and future interest @ 6% per annum since the date of decree of the trial court till recovery. August 04, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE