PUSHPA RANI Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT no. 9 Pushpa Rani has filed this second appeal. Suit was filed by respondent no. 1-plaintiff Raj Kumar against appellant and proforma respondents no. 2 to 17 (including predecessors of some of them). Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs 2,35,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. Defendants no. 9 and 10 preferred first appeal wherein plaintiff filed cross objections. Learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008 dismissed the first appeal and partly allowed the cross objections and enhanced the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 9% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 9 has filed this second appeal.

(2.) NOTICE of motion in the instant second appeal was issued regarding rate of interest only. Since respondent no. 1 plaintiff is the only contesting respondent in the instant second appeal, service of unserved respondents or impleading of legal representatives of deceased respondents no. 10 and 11 is dispensed with.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival contentions which deserve part acceptance. In so far as pendente lite rate of interest is concerned, the same at the rate of 9% per annum as awarded by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be excessive by any standards. So the same does not require any reduction. However, as regards future rate of interest from the date of decree of trial court till recovery, the same requires interference in view of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which future interest cannot exceed 6% per annum except in the case of commercial transaction. In the instant case, the transaction was not commercial and therefore, future rate of interest could not exceed @ 6% per annum. Consequently, the future rate of interest awarded by the lower appellate court is liable to be modified to this extent. Substantial question of law to this effect arises for adjudication in this second appeal and the same is answered accordingly.