HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 502 of 2001 Decided on: 1.7.2011. M/s Solan Food Products Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant/plaintiff. Versus State of H.P. and another ………Respondent/Defendants. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.Raman Sethi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 11.4.2001, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, vide which he modified the judgment and decree, dated 27.9.2000, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter also referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.30,000/- against the respondents (hereinafter also referred to as the defendants). The allegations made by the plaintiff were that the plaintiff Company availed a loan amounting to Rs.25,000/- from the defendants and duly executed a - 2 - mortgage deed on 23.2.1966. The terms and conditions as to the repayment of the loan amount and interest were incorporated in the said mortgage deed. The interest was to be charged by the defendant Government at the rate of 5- 1/2%. The plaintiff cleared the amount alongwith interest on 31.3.1983. The subsidy granted in favour of the plaintiff was also adjusted at the time of repayment. It was alleged that in spite of clearance of the amount and payment of the loan and interest, the defendants did not pay the balance amount and a notice of demand was also served upon the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.19,840/-. There were no loan arrears and the loan amount had been fully cleared and, therefore, the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendants. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants had no right to claim a sum of Rs.22,068/- which was paid under duress and protest and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount alongwith interest. 3. Defendants contested the suit and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the amount as claimed? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 CPC? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Relief. - 3 - 4. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% and costs. On appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was modified to the extent that the plaintiff was held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.18,641 only from the defendants, but the plaintiff was not held entitled to the interest and costs of the suit since he did not pay instalments in time and had paid the principal amount after the lapse of 9 years. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments submitted that he has not challenged the findings of the learned trial Court reducing the principal amount to Rs.18,641/- and no appeal has been preferred by the State also in regard to the recovery of the amount decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The dispute is only in regard to the interest claimed by the plaintiff as well as the costs which were not awarded by the learned Appellate Court. 7. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is clear and not disputed that the loan in question was cleared by the plaintiff on 8.4.1991 and balance amount, as decreed by the learned Appellate Court, had become due to the plaintiff to be paid by the defendants but the said amount was not paid right from 8.4.1991 onwards till the matter was decided by the Court. It is clear that the - 4 - interest was granted at the rate of 12% by the learned trial Court which seems to be excessive and under the provision of Section 34 CPC, the plaintiff is entitled only to the interest at the rate of 6% and not at the rate of 12% since it was not a commercial transaction and the default had been committed by the plaintiff though he paid the interest for the delay in payment also as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. I accordingly, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount decreed by the learned Additional District Judge i.e. Rs.18,641/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 8.4.1991 till the date of deposit. The appellant is also held entitled to costs accordingly on the amount decreed in his favour. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan stands modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. July 1, 2011. (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.