SANJEEV VAZE Vs. KUNDA VAIKUNTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent/plaintiff, in this case, stood surety for the present appellant/defendant to the Bank in America in order to enable the appellant/defendant to purchase a car. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff repaid the loan of the Bank advanced to the appellant/defendant as per the direction and instruction given by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit, being Special Civil Suit No. of 1989 for recovery of due from the defendant of the value of Rs.58,000/- at the time of filing the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit and directed the appellant/defendant to pay an amount of Rs.32,027/- from 10.11.1985 till realisation of the decretal amount. It is this judgment and decree dated 21.7.1993 passed by the III Jt. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Pune in Special Suit No. of 1989 which is the subject matter of an appeal, being First Appeal No.259 of 1994 filed by the present appellant/defendant.

(2.) THE aforesaid judgment and decree is challenged by the present appellant/defendant mainly on the ground that the trial Court ought to have granted the rate of exchange to the respondent/plaintiff which was at the time of contract, i.e. from the date 22-7-85 and not from the date of the suit filed by the plaintiff, i.e. 18.8.1989. It was further argued that the trial court ought to have passed the order of interest from the date of decree and not from 22-7-85. Apart from that, the appellant has also challenged the principal amount decreed by the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the admitted mistake committed by the respondent/plaintiff while arriving at the figure of principal amount. The respondent/plaintiff, in this appeal, has also filed Cross Objection against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and further claimed an additional amount of Rs.52,000/- over and above the decree granted by the trial Court. The main contention of the respondent is that the trial Court erred in granting the exchange rate which was prevalent on the date of filing of the suit i.e. 18.8.1989 and in fact ought to have granted the rate of exchange prevalent on the date of decree, i.e. 21.7.1993 and according to the respondent/plaintiff in fact now she is entitled to recover the amount from the appellant/plaintiff at the exchange rate on the date of decree of this High Court.

(3.) MR .Ghare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present appellant strenuously contended that the trial Court was wrong in applying the rate of interest to the decretal amount which was prevalent at the time of filing the suit, i.e Rs.16.50 per US Dollar and ought to have granted exchange rate which was prevalent on 22.7.1985 i.e. Rs.12.50 per US Dollar. On the other hand, Mr. Haushing , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff contended that as per the ruling of the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power Co.Ltd V. General Electric Co. AIR 1994 Supreme Court 860 the trial Court ought to have granted the exchange rate at the time of passing the decree and further argued that since the appeal is in continuation of the suit, now the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get the rate of exchange prevalent on the date of this decree, i.e. today.