SINGHVI AND CO Vs. DHARMILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a suit for recovery of money filed by M/s Singhvi and Company against Shri Dharmi Lal The suit was decreed by the Additional District Jude, Udaipur on March 22,1980 for a sum of Rs. 10,746.04. The plaintiff was also awarded interest on the decretal amount, from January 30, 1974 upto the date of the decree and until realisation of the said amount, at the rate of 6% per annum. As these appeals raise very short questions relating to interest and grant of instalments, they were taken together to day for hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff as put in the plaint filed on July 8, 1970 was that the defendant had purchased silver ornaments from the plaintiff's shop on various dates for a total sum of Rs. 56,211 55 and also made payment of a sum of Rs. 44,996.16 on different dates leaving a balance of Rs. 11,215.39. The aforesaid amount was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit along with Rs. 1983,55 by way of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Some expenses were also claimed by the plaintiff, and the suit was filed for a total sum of Rs 13,297.15. The defendant in his written statement claimed that a sum of Rs. 8,647.00 was paid by him to the plaintiff in addition to the amount admitted by him and that only a sum of Rs. 2,568.39 remained to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. The defendant of course admitted that silver ornaments of the value alleged by the plaintiff were purchased by him from the plaintiff's shop. The defendant also claimed instalments of the amount which may be decreed against him in view of this weak financial position.

(3.) NOW , only two questions arise in these two appeals The trial court allowed interest to the plaintiff at 6% per annum from January 30, 1974 upto the date of the decree and until realisation. The submission of the plaintiff in his appeal is that' interest should have been awarded to him for the entire period from the date of the transactions upto the date of the suit and then upto the date of decree and until realisation, at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for the defendant is that in view of the finding of the trial court on issue No. 5, interest should not have been awarded at all to the plaintiff either during the pendency of the suit or even thereafter.