L.N.MITTAL,J.(ORAL) : - (1.) THIS is second appeal by defendant Gurcharan Singh, having failed in both the courts below. Respondent-plaintiff filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.1,47,900/-, which included Rs.1,20,000/- as principal amount and Rs.27,900/- as interest till filing of the suit at the modest rate of 121/2% per annum. The suit stands decreed for recovery of Rs.1,47,900/- (suit amount) with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Vide detailed order dated 03.05.2011, it has been held that no ground is made out for interference in concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below determining the liability of defendant-appellant on the basis of pronote and receipt. However, counsel for the appellant prayed for adjournment on that date to seek instructions if the appellant was ready to pay the amount in lump-sum, if some interest amount could be waived. The matter was kept alive for exploring possibility of amicable settlement between the parties regarding reduction of amount of interest. However, since then, the appellant has not offered to pay the decretal amount with some reduced interest amount. Having considered the matter, there is no scope for reducing the amount of interest because the courts below have awarded the interest @ 6% per annum only since the date of filing of suit till recovery. Future interest from the date of decree of the trial court could not exceed 6% per annum, but even for pendency of the suit, which remained pending for three years and nine months, interest has been awarded @ 6% per annum only, which is already on the lower side, and therefore, does not call for any further reduction. It may be added that the suit was filed more than eight years ago. The plaintiff has not been able to realise even a single penny even after having been successful in the courts below. Even first appeal had been decided on 19.08.2009 i.e. almost three years ago. Thus, conduct of the defendant-appellant also does not justify the grant of any relief regarding the amount of interest. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being meritless.;