STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7 / 1984 filed by the Appellant-State Bank of India for modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 21-12-1983 passed by learned District Judge, Jammu. Facts giving rise to this appeal are the appellant-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for the recovery of Rs.10.454.20 before the learned District Judge, Jammu and the same was decreed on 21st of Dec. 1983. Though in the appeal, it has wrongly been put 22nd of Dec. 1983, but the actual Judgment and Decree has been passed by the Learned District Judge on 21st of Dec. 1983 decreeing the suit with 9% interest. Suit has been decreed on the basis of the admission of the Defendant as is obvious from the impugned judgment. Appellant is aggrieved by this order only to the extent that interest has not been decreed on the basis of agreement, but the trial Court has exercised discretion without assigning any reason for minimising the interest. Memo of appeal shows that the appellant is entitled to 12 1/2% per annum as interest from the date of filing the suit till realisation and 25% of the outstanding balance.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned Judgement on two points. Firstly, that the Court has though decreed the suit but has allowed the Defendants-Respondents to liquidate the decretal amount in instalments of Rs. 400/ - per month. Secondly, instead of contractual rate of interest, Court below has allowed only 9% which is against the contractual rate and no reasons have been assigned, both for allowing the respondents to liquidate the amount in instalments and for granting the rate of interest much below to the contractual rate. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the Memo of Appeal whereby it is manifestly clear that the appellant has not raised any plea regarding the instalments. So what he wants to argue here, regarding the instalments is not pleaded in the Memo of Appeal. Learned counsel cannot go beyond his pleadings. So objection raised by him regarding the instalments is rejected.

(3.) Secondly, so far as the rate of interest is conceded, Learned Trial Court has decreed , the suit and has allowed the interest pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9%. It is a fact that no reasons have been given by the Learned Judge for allowing the interest at the lesser rate than the contractual rate. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case was contested by the respondents, whole evidence was recorded in the case and after the closure of evidence, Defendants came up and admitted the claim. There was no plea whatsoever which could justify the interest to be allowed at a lesser rate than the contractual rate. According to him, matter is a commercial one and the Court in the commercial matters has to allow the interest on the commercial rate as a general rule unless there is some plea of poverty or any other cause is shown which finds favour with the Court, it is only then the Court can exercise the discretion in favour of the other side.