IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 338 of 2003. Date of decision: September 29,2010. H.P. Financial Corporation. …. Appellant. Versus M/s Sky View Hotel and others. …. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : 1. Instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (HPFC) in short the ‘Corporation’. 2. Civil Suit No.26-S/1 of 2002/2001 was filed by the Corporation against the defendant-respondents for the recovery of `8,24,447/-. The defendant- respondents did not put in appearance before the learned trial Court, as such they were proceeded ex 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. - 2 - parte. The learned trial Court recorded exparte evidence and decreed the suit on 4.9.2002 for the recovery of aforesaid amount alongwith up-to-date interest @ 17.5% per annum with half yearly rests against the defendant-respondents, jointly and severally with costs. 3. Thereafter, an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellant- Corporation before the learned trial Court for amending its judgment and decree praying that there crept a typographical or accidental error by not mentioning ‘future interest’. 4. Learned trial Court, vide its order dated 25th February, 2003 dismissed the application, on the ground that there was no such error as alleged, which requires any amendment. If the appellant-Corporation felt aggrieved, it could file an appeal. Hence, the instant appeal. 5. Post admission notice was sent to the respondents. They avoided the service, ultimately, they were ordered to be served through substituted service i.e. by publication, but even despite - 3 - publication, they did not put in appearance, as such they were proceeded ex parte. 6. Heard and gone through the trial Court record. 7. As stated above, the learned Court below had decreed the suit in favour of the appellant- Corporation and allowed the up-to-date interest @ 17.5% per annum from the date of passing of the decree i.e. 4.9.2002 on the amount claimed, but did not make any reference with respect to future interest, which is deemed to have been declined. In this behalf a reference can be made to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein it has been mentioned that when there is a contract in between the parties at which rate the interest is charged, then that rate of interest will be charged and the Court will have no right to interfere with agreed rate of interest or when there is no agreed rate of interest, then rate of interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6% per annum and in case of commercial transaction, it may be higher than that, because commercial institutions, depends upon the earnings from the rate of interest made. 8. In the instant case, the rate of interest was agreed upon @17.5% per annum inter se the parties as - 4 - per term loan agreement Ex.PW1/A proved by PW1 Subhash Chand, Senior Assistant. It was a commercial transaction. The learned Court below could not have declined the future interest at the same rate as agreed upon. Thus, in my opinion, learned trial Court has committed an error of law. 9. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the amount of `8,24,447/- in addition to the up-to-date interest @ 17.5% with half yearly rests awarded by the learned trial Court shall also carry the future interest at the same rate i.e. @ 17.5% per annum till its realization. Appeal stands disposed of. 10. All pending application(s), if any, are dismissed. Sent down the records. September 29, 2010 (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge