R.S.A No. 5020 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 5020 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.12.2011 Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh and another ...Appellants Versus M/s Naveen Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Company, Bhiwani ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) C.M. No. 14693 & 14695-C of 2011 These are applications filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing and 97 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 11 days in filing and 97 days in re-filing the appeal, respectively is condoned. Accordingly, applications are allowed. R.S.A No. 5020 of 2011 (O&M) Challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby the lower Appellate Court has modified the order dated 05.02.2011 of the trial Court by enhancing the R.S.A No. 5020 of 2011 (O&M) 2 interest @ 6 % per annum to 17.5% per annum from 08.08.2006 on the amount of `3,62,759/- to be refunded to the respondent-plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-M/s Naveen Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Company, Bhiwani had availed a Cash Credit Limit of `9 lacs in the year 1955 and against the said limit, plaintiff-respondent mortgaged its land and building of unit bearing Plot No. 92, Sector 21, Industrial Area, Bhiwani. After paying the loan amount, the respondent approached the Corporation for release of title deed but on 30.01.2001,the appellants issued a letter that a sum of `3,42,364/- was due against the respondent. Subsequently, vide letter dated 16.07.2004, the respondent was informed that sum of `2,42,159/- was due. Vide letter dated 25.08.2004, the Corporation proceeded to sale the mortgaged property by way of public auction to recover the dues. The suit was filed in this background On notice, the defendants- appellants filed their written statement and took the stand and admitted that the cash credit Limit of `10 lacs was granted to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of 17.5%. As per letter dated 19.06.1995, the cash credit limit of plaintiff was sanctioned, the amount of loan was to be renewed yearly. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with the Clean hands? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly stamped for the purpose of Court fees? OPD 7. Relief. R.S.A No. 5020 of 2011 (O&M) 3 After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the trial Court returned the finding on issue No. 1 that the Corporation was not entitled to claim the payment of Rs.3,62,759/- and the plaintiff's suit was decreed and he was entitled to the said amount as paid on 08.08.2006 along with 6% interest. However, the Appellate Court modified the order dated 05.02.2011 of the trial Court by enhancing the interest @ 6 % per annum to 17.5% per annum from 08.08.2006 on the amount of `3,62,759/- to be refunded to the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the rate of interest has been the same which was paid by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the respondent-Company had paid the loan amount at the rate of 17.5% per annum i.e the excess payment made, which was retained by the Corporation in 2006, could not be given back with only 6% interest as the Corporation was bound by the terms of the Contract under which they had extended cash credit limi. The order of the Appellate Court does not require any interference. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication before this Court. Dismissed. December 21, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE