1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil First Appeal No.52/1994 (Samunder Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Others) Date of Judgment :: 2nd April, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. J.P. Goyal for the appellant Mr. S.C. Purohit, Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: The only contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that trial court committed an illegality in not awarding the interest on the decretal amount of Rs. 18,000/- from due date till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 12th February, 1982 to 20th November, 1988, which may be awarded and trial court's decree may be modified accordingly. 2. The plaintiff, who was contractor filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,500/- (Rs. Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred only) against the defendants in the trial court, the details of which are as under:- 2 Rs. 23,000/- On account of wrong deduction due to Shrinkage Rs. 6500/- Deduction on account of defective dressing Rs. 23,820/- Interest from 12.2.1982 to 20.11.1988 Rs. 180/- Notice and legal expenses 3. The trial court partly decreed the suit. Rs. 11,500/- were allowed towards wrong deduction on account of Shrinkage charges by holding that deduction @ 10% is illegal, whereas it should have been 5%, as recommended by the A.En. Rs. 6500/- were held to be wrongly deducted and the same was allowed. The interest was not allowed and no reason for it has been mentioned in the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that trial court has not assigned any reason for not awarding the interest on the decretal amount, which has been found to be wrongly deducted by the defendants and in these circumstances, the interest should be awarded from due date till the date of filing of the suit, but so far as interest on decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit is concerned, the same has already been awarded by the trial court @ 8 per annum. 5. The learned counsel for the 3 respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, but could not justify his contention for not awarding the interest on the said amount by any legal or factual submissions. 6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and record of the trial court. 7. The trial court while deciding the issue no.1 and 2 has recorded a finding that defendants wrongly deducted the amount on account of Shrinkage at the rate of 10% in place of 5% as recommended by A.En. concerned, thus, Rs. 11,500/- was awarded against total claim of Rs. 23,000/-. The trial court has also awarded Rs. 6500/- by holding that this amount was wrongly deducted on account of defective dressing. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 23,820/- towards interest @ 12% per annum on total amount of Rs. 29,500/- i.e. Rs. 23,000 + 6500/- from 12th February, 1982 to 20th November, 1988. It appears from the impugned order that trial court has not assigned any reason for not awarding the interest on the amount which was found to be payable to plaintiff by the defendants i.e. Rs. 11,500/- + 4 6500/-; total Rs. 18,000/-, for which a decree has been passed. 8. In my view, the trial court has committed an illegality in not awarding the interest, whereas the interest was payable and plaintiff was entitled for the same. 9. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 31st July, 1993 passed by the trial court is modified and it is further directed that plaintiff-appellant will also be entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum on the decretal amount of Rs. 18,000/- for the period from 12th February, 1982 till the date of filing of the suit. 10. No order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK