Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs Sardha Ram on 31 August, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.2793 OF 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 31st AUGUST, 2012
Om Parkash
.... Petitioner
Versus
Sardha Ram
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the respondent.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.12004-CII of 2012 Heard.
This is application by petitioner for condoning delay of 449 days in filing the revision petition. Although strictly speaking, averments made in the application do not make out sufficient ground for condoning the said long delay, yet adopting liberal approach and because notice in revision petition has been issued regarding rate of interest only, the aforesaid delay is condoned.
The application stands allowed accordingly.
Main Case Respondent-plaintiff filed suit against defendant-petitioner for recovery of `15,480/- alleging that the defendant borrowed `9,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.01.2000 and agreed to repay the same along with interest thereon @ 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but did not repay the amount. Accordingly plaintiff sought recovery of `9,000/- as CR No.2793 of 2012 (O&M) -2- principal amount and `6,480/- as interest @ 2% per month till filing of the suit i.e. for total amount of `15,480/-.
Learned trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of `15,480/- along with interest @ 2% per month from the date of filing of suit till recovery. In first appeal preferred by defendant, lower appellate Court modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court regarding future interest only holding that from the date of decree of trial Court till recovery, the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on principal amount of `9,000/- in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court in other respects. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition because regular second appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure as subject matter of the original suit for recovery of money did not exceed `25,000/-.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
As noticed hereinbefore, notice of motion in the revision petition has been issued limited to rate of interest. Counsel for the petitioner contended that interest @ 2% per month since the date of pronote till filing of suit as claimed in the suit and also pendente lite interest at the same rate from the date of filing of suit till decree of the trial Court, is highly excessive.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff justified the said rate of interest on the ground that it was agreed rate of interest.
I have carefully considered the matter. It is correct that the defendant had agreed to repay the loan amount with interest @2% per month. Nevertheless if it appears to the Court that agreed rate of interest is excessive or unreasonable, the Court is not bound to grant interest at the agreed rate even CR No.2793 of 2012 (O&M) -3- for pre-suit period and pendente lite. In the instant case, interest @ 2% per month i.e. 24% per annum is highly excessive and unreasonable and is required to be reduced to reasonable rate. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff should be awarded interest at reasonable rate of interest i.e. 1% per month i.e. 12% per annum.
It is ordered accordingly.
Judgments of the Courts below are, therefore, modified and suit of the plaintiff-respondent is decreed for recovery of principal amount of `9,000/- along with interest thereon @ 1% per month since 27.01.2000 the date of advancing loan till 11.10.2008 the date of decree of the trial Court and future interest @ 6% per annum since the date of decree of trial Court till recovery. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of both the courts below. No order as to costs regarding the instant revision petition.
31st August, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE