IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.3689 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.5.2009 Romesh Kumar. ....... Appellant through Shri B.S.Jaswal, Advocate. Versus Punjab State and others. ....... Respondent through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.10963-C of 2008 The application is allowed and the delay of 14 days in the re- filing of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.3689 of 2008 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 19.10.2006 and 18.3.2008 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Amritsar (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decree, but he was not held entitled to any interest on the amount as claimed and his appeal and that of the defendants-appellants were dismissed. R.S.A.No.3689 of 2008 -2- .... The appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to get 50% balance pay of his suspension period from 10.9.2000 to 10.9.2004 while treating the same as duty period. It was further prayed that a decree of mandatory injunction be also passed directing the respondents to pay the arrears along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also give him the benefit of A.C.P. increment of 16 years which was due since 1996 and revise the pensionary benefits accordingly. The suit was decreed after contest by the respondents, but the interest was declined to the appellant on the amount claimed by him. Feeling dis-satisfied, the respondents as well as the appellant filed appeals which were dismissed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, while declining the prayer of the appellant for interest, has upheld the discretion and wisdom exercised by the trial Court in this regard. This has resulted in the filing of the instant appeal to contend that interest should have been granted to him on the amount claimed in the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that while decreeing the suit, interest has necessarily to be granted. I am afraid, the contention is totally misconceived. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, `the C.P.C.'), which is relevant to the facts of the case, is reproduced below:- “34. Interest.- Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the R.S.A.No.3689 of 2008 -3- .... principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit: Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation 1.- In this sub-section, “nationalised bank” means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,1970 ( 5 of 1970). Explanation II. - For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court R.S.A.No.3689 of 2008 -4- .... shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie.” It is to be noticed that the order by which the subsistence allowance was withheld, was passed by the respondents as the appellant, who was a government servant, was facing serious allegation of possessing counterfeit currency and, therefore, an element of some justification in their action creeps in. In any eventuality, as seen above from the provisions of Section 34 of the C.P.C., the grant of interest is discretionary relief and the Courts below have exercised this discretion on justifiable grounds. The question of law that arises is as to “whether the grant of interest is mandatory for the Courts while decreeing the suit?” For the reasons recorded above and keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 of the C.P.C., the grant of interest is a discretionary relief which may be declined to a litigant if in its opinion it is justified, the above question is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. No other infirmity or illegality has been pointed out in the impugned judgments by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. May 06,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge