PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) THIS civil second appeal arises out of the judgment and a decree dated 7.12.2005 passed in civil appeal No. 23 of 2005 partly accepting the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala whereby the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed.
(2.) RESPONDENT M/s Om Parkash Hari Chand filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,09,400/- allegedly on account of advance paid to the appellant herein during the course of business transactions. The suit came to be dismissed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.1.2005. The plaintiff- respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge Kapurthala who reversed the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2005 and passed a decree of Rs. 99,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 49000/- w.e.f. 24.7.1999 to 5.8.1999, at the same rate from 6.8.1999 till the passing of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation on the amount of Rs. 99,000/-. This judgment and decree is the subject matter of the present appeal. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no legal evidence before the first Appellate Court for passing the decree as both the sides produced handwriting experts and their opinions differ. I have perused the judgment impugned herein. Even if the evidence of the expert witnesses is excluded, there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the findings the first Appellate Court and consequently the decree. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has attempted to raise three questions in the memo of appeal as the substantial questions of law. I have perused the same. Questions (a) and (b) are not the substantial questions of law and relate to appreciation of evidence. The question which needs consideration is regarding the interest. As far the question of interest is concerned, the claim for interest was based upon the mercantile custom prevalent in the business market. It is not in dispute that no evidence was led to prove such a business custom. The Appellate Court however without returning any positive finding about the rate of interest has awarded the interest @ 12% in the manner as indicated above and 6% after passing the decree till its realisation. No doubt, no evidence was led as regards the interest is concerned. However, admittedly the amount was wrongfully withheld by the appellant, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to compensatory interest. Keeping in view the prevalent rate of interest in the banking sector, I deem it proper to award interest @ 6% from the date of advancement i.e. 24.7.1999 on Rs. 49,000/- and w.e.f. 6.8.1999 on Rs. 50,000/- with this modification this appeal is disposed of. Order accordingly.;