LAWS(BOM)-1992-12-52

JYOTI TRADERS Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS

Decided On December 04, 1992
JYOTI TRADERS Appellant
V/S
Mahendra Kumar and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. R & P and printing of paper books dispensed with.

(2.) The only question involved in this appeal was about the future interest from the date of suit till its realisation. Hence, on 9-11-92, notice was issued to the respondents for final disposal. It was made clear in the said notice that the respondents should remain present in the Court on the date of hearing either in person or through their Counsel. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff i.e. the respondent No. 1 today.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant/original defendant No. 1 has urged before us that since there was no stipulation in the agreement of sale (Exh. 17) about the interest upon the earnest money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1, future interest upon the said earnest money from the date of suit till realisation canno1. be granted. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has brought to our notice a Judgment in the case of T.K. Sundaram v. The Co-operative Sugars Ltd., Chittor, 1988 AIR(Mad) 167, of Madras High Court., perusal of para 9 of which relating to the grant of future interest, does not show any reason why future interest can not be granted by the learned Trial Court in exercise of it's discretion under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except that there is no stipulation about the interest in the agreement itself. As regards the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manchalal and Another v. Shah Manikchand and Others, 1988 AIR(Kar) 221, perusal of para 14 of the said Judgment shows that because there was a specific term for payment of damages, it was held that the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure about future interest were not attracted.