RSA No. 4002 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 12178-C of 2009 and RSA No. 4002 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 06 , 2009 Ram Sarup ...... Appellant Versus Om Parkash ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Ashwani Verma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 12178-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 4002 of 2009 (O&M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below partly decreeing the recovery suit filed by the respondent. The respondent had filed a suit for recovering a sum of Rs. 7,11,934/- with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The Courts below have, however, partly decreed it for an amount of Rs. 2,55,493/-with interest at the rate of RSA No. 4002 of 2009 (O&M) 2 6% p.a. from 31.1.2003 till realisation. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower courts are perverse,against the facts and evidence on record and unjustified? ii) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,55,493/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the appellant/defendant particularly when the learned lower court has specifically given the finding that the entries in the account books produced in evidence are false? iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are justified specially when it has come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence don record that the respondent/plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court in support of his claim? iv) Whether the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is maintainable as per the provisions of Indian Partnership Act? iv) Whether the agreement to sell is enforceable in the eyes of law and the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2009 passed by the learned first Appellate Court to the extent of modification of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court qua the decree of specific performance is liable to be dismissed being contrary to the provisions of law and contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell? v) Whether the grave and manifest injustice would be caused to the appellant-defendant in case of execution of the aforesaid impugned judgments and decree passed by the earned courts below? Learned counsel has stated that the question No.(iv) has been proposed inadvertently and has no applicability. It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has argued that once the court found that the complete facts were not brought out by the respondents the suit should have RSA No. 4002 of 2009 (O&M) 3 been dismissed. However, I find that that courts below have considered all the facts and that is why instead of decreeing the suit in entirety, a decree for recovering an amount of only Rs.2,55,000/-odd has been ordered. Learned counsel has further argued that pre- suit interest could not have been granted. He has relied upon a judgment of this court in Gian Chand v. Baldev Raj reported as 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 307 and particularly para 7 of the said judgment which is reproduced as under:- “Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that Courts below have erred in law in granting interest on the entire amount of Rs. 63477.06 at bank rate. The said amount is inclusive of pre-suit interest and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to interest on the amount of interest already claimed. Still further, bank rate cannot be granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to pendente lite and future interest more than 6% per annum as the transaction cannot be said to be commercial transaction. Even the said interest has to be granted on the principal amount i.e. Rs. 53,072.06. The said argument of learned counsel for the appellant could not be disputed in any cogent manner by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.” A perusal of the above extract, however, shows that no principle of law was laid down that pre-suit interest cannot be charged in any circumstance. In the present case the courts below have found that the principal amount due on 31.1.2003 was Rs. 2,55,493/- and have awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from that date. In my opinion there is no illegality in this imposition of interest. Consequently this appeal and the application for stay as well are dismissed . No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. RSA No. 4002 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 06, 2009 sunita