IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 AS.No. 63 of 1999(A) -------------------- OS.834/1994 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PLAINTIFF -------------- IPEKUTTY THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, RESIDING AT KARAPPARA VETTIYIL, VAKATHANAM KARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.RAMESH JOHN RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS --------------- 1. M.I. VARGHESE, S/O. IPE, RESIDING AT KUNNATHU HOUSE, VAKATHANAM KARA, FROM MANNOOR HOUSE, VELLOOR KARA, KOTTAYAM. 2. SOSAMMA VARGHESE, W/O. VARGHESE, DO. DO. 3. ALEYAMMA KURIAKOSE, W/O. KURIAKOSE, DO. DO. THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. -------------------------------------- A.S. 63 OF 1999 -------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 20, 2009 JUDGMENT In this appeal the plaintiff in OS 834/1994 of Addl. Sub Court, Kottayam, challenges the decree and judgment of the lower court dated July 21, 1998 in so far as the lower court granted future interest only at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. Defendants borrowed Rs.68000/- from the plaintiff on December 1, 1993 and executed a promissory note Ext.A1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and that in spite of the notice, the defendants did not repay the amount. The appellant/plaintiff prayed for a decree for recovery of the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. The defendants/respondents remained absent and were set ex parte by the lower court. In this appeal also they remained absent. Counsel for the appellant was heard. 4. The only point which arises for consideration is whether the lower court is justified in awarding future interest at the rate A.S. 63 OF 1999 2 of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that since it being a commercial transaction as provided under sec.34, future interest at the rate of 10% per annum should be allowed. But the appellant has failed to show that it is a commercial transaction. There is nothing to show that the respondent has borrowed the amount for the purpose of conducting his business. Therefore the above contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained. That being so, the lower court is justified in awarding future interest at the rate of 6% per annum only. Hence, the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the decree of the lower court. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-