FAROOKH AHMED MEMAN Vs. KADEER KADAR MEMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Pune dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant (original defendant). The learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Pune has passed a decree in favour of the respondent herein (original plaintiff) thereby directing the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.5,28,900/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The learned trial judge as well as the lower appellate Court after considering the oral evidence and documentary evidence have rendered a concurrent finding that the appellant owed an amount of Rs.5,28,900/- to the respondent (plaintiff). The lower appellate court has rendered a further finding that the document dated 15th June, 2009 would fall within the definition of bond.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has canvassed two issues while impugning the order passed by the lower appellate court. It is submitted that though the lower appellate court has rendered a finding for the first time in the appeal filed by the appellant that the said document dated 15th June, 2009 was bond and though the original plaintiff had not paid the appropriate amount of the stamp duty on the said document which was adjudicated as bond by the lower appellate court, instead of the impounding the said document under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamps Act, the lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on erroneous reasons.

(3.) The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no rate of interest provided in the document dated 15th June, 2009 and the transaction being not a commercial transaction between the parties, in view of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court below could not have awarded more than 6% p.a. from the date of decree till payment.