RSA No.3189 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 8914-C of 2007 and RSA No. 3189 of 2007 Date of Decision: October 26 , 2009 Tarminderjit Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Amrit Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent. **** Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 8914-C of 2007 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 93 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 3189 of 2007 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below passing final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dated 16.1.87 and allowing mesne profits to the respondent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 1979 till 8.5.2002 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. It is not disputed that the preliminary decree dated 16.1.87 was a compromise decree whereby both the brothers were held to be in ½ share in the property. Learned counsel for the appellants does not deny the fact that the respondent is half owner of the property or that the appellants are in RSA No.3189 of 2009 2 possession of the entire property. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the Appellate Court was justified in enhancing the rate of mesne profit after 31.12.1998 despite the Local Commissioner having assessed the same and accepted by both the parties? ii)Whether the discretion exercised by the learned Appellate Court in granting interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the mesne profit could be enhanced by the learned Appellate Court without recording any reason for the same? iii)Whether the enhancement of the rate of mesne profit and the interest on the same by the learned Appellate Court could be done in the absence of any cogent reason? iv)Whether the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court could be interfered by the learned Appellate Court in the absence of any grave error of law, equity or justice apparent on the face of record? It would be seen that all the questions proposed relate to increase of the rate of interest from 4% to 6%. In my opinion no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Consequently the same is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 26, 2009 sunita