CHHINDER SINGH Vs. RAVINDERA TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,40,549/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum was decreed. At the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has inter alia stated that keeping in view the fact that the appellant is an agriculturist the interest rate granted by the Courts below was exorbitant and on the higher side.

(2.) On the basis of the aforesaid argument notice of motion was issued to the respondent. An offer given by learned counsel for the respondent that plaintiff-respondent was agreeable to charge interest @ of 10% instead of 12%. Since an amicable settlement was in sight, vide order dated 27.5.2009, the case was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat of this Court keeping in view the provisions of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. However, no settlement could be reached between the parties before the Permanent Lok Adalat, and the matter was returned to this Court. It may also be mentioned at this stage, that appellant also filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.8017-C of 2009, for recalling of the aforesaid order dated 27.5.2009. However, the aforesaid application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.8.2009. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant also challenged the aforesaid order in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.CC 16194/2009, and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 3.11.2009. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid development and the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,40,549/- (i.e., Rs.4,89,175/- as principal amount and Rs.3,51,384/- as interest thereon calculated at the rate agreed rate of 24% per annum upto the date of filing of the suit i.e., 30.4.2004). The plaintiff-respondent also claimed further interest with effect from 1.5.2004 till its realization at the rate of 24% per annum. Upon notice, appellant-defendant appeared and filed written statement. It was asserted by the appellant that he was an agriculturist and being customer of the respondent, he used to bring his agricultural produce for sale through the respondent, and the appellant also used to borrow money in case of need and the account was being maintained in his name. In the year 1999, he settled whole of his account with the respondent and every amount was paid, and thereafter nothing remained towards him. He also started his dealings for taking money and returning the same with the Agricultural Rural Bank at Rania. It was further asserted that the loan account shown by the respondent was false, fictitious and signatures of the appellant were also fictitious and forged. Thus, the dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-