UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. HANS RAJ SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 35145.94 with costs and pendente lite interest at the agreed rates was decreed by the learned single Judge of this court to the extent of Rs. 27600/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 4% per annum with proportionate costs. It was further directed that in case the aforesaid amount was not liquidated together with the interest and costs within three months from the date of decree, the decretal amount together with interest and costs shall be realised from the sale proceeds of the property mortgaged/hypothecated with the plaintiff/appellant Bank. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Judge, by which he had partially disallowed certain claims of the appellant and refused to grant the pendente lite interest at the agreed rates, this appeal has been filed with the allegations that the judgment and decree of the single Judge to that extent was liable to be quashed as the same was contrary to the provisions of law and hosed upon wrong appreciation of evidence produced by the appellants. It is submitted that the learned single Judge committed an error in holding that the appellant had not proved the expenditure amounting to Rs. 2400/- on account of taxi charges and TA/DA paid to the godown keeper. It is further submitted that the finding of the single Judge in so far as it relates to the payment of salary to the Chowkidar is concerned, is also contrary to the weight of the evidence on the record.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Mr. Thakur the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank has submitted that the learned single Judge was not justified in not allowing the appellants to claim the pendente lite interest on the contractual rates. He has referred to the provisions of S.79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and urged that in a case based upon a negotiable instrument, the court has no option but to award interest at the contractual rates even for the period commencing from after the institution of the suit. It is submitted by him that the provisions of S.34 of the C.P.C. are controlled by the provisions of S.79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.