Skip to content


Lehru NaraIn Vs. Kanhaiyalal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 17 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Raj316; 1973()WLN263
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 34 - Order 34, Rule 11
AppellantLehru Narain
RespondentKanhaiyalal
Appellant Advocate P.C. Bhandari, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.N. Tikku, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - section 34--future interest--held, it is a judicial discretion.;awarding of future interest on the principles contained in section 34 of the code of civil procedure is fundamentally a matter of judicial discretion. for ought we know the learned single judge was persuaded to allow rs. 6.00 percent future interest because he had disallowed interest pendente lite.;(b) civil procedure code - section 34 and order 34 rule 11--powers of court to do justice.;court's power to render justice where it is due are not confined to section 34, cpc. reference in this connection may be made to the provisions of order 34 rule 11. there is ample power in appellate court to give such relief which dictates of justice compel and sense of equity supports. - .....discretion. for aught we know the learned single judge was persuaded to allow rs. 6.00 per cent, future interest because he had disallowed interest pendente lite. mr. bhandari's argument that ordinarily interest stipulated in a bond is not to be exceeded when future interest is allowed because the creditor has an additional security in the shape of a decree. may be a decree was equated to additional security in days gone by but today we are not prepared to take such a view because it has become almost a proverb in human behaviour that the misfortunes of a decree-holder ordinarily commence after the passing of the decree. perhaps the rate of future interest in some cases could possibly act as a lever to accelerate the payment of the decretal amount. it is possible that this might.....
Judgment:

Beri, C.J.

1. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated December 2, 1971, this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed and the only question convassed before us is one in regard to future interest.

2. Plaintiff's suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 10,000,00 on a plaint presented on 26th of September, 1964. No interest pendente lite or future was awarded. The defendant preferred an appeal before this Court and the plaintiff filed a cross-objection praying for interest pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per cent, per annum. The learned Single Judge dismissed the defendant's appeal, disallowed interest pendente lite but awarded future interest at the rate of Rs. 6.00 per cent, per annum, from the date of the decree, namely, 26-9-1967 till the date of payment. The defendant now prefers an appeal on the ground urged by Mr. Bhandari that when the future interest claimed in the cross-objection was only Rs. 3.00 per cent., the plaintiff could not have been allowed Rs. 6.00 per cent. p. a future interest.

3. Mr. Tikku submits that the learned Single Judge disallowed interest pendente lite and preferred to allow future interest at the rate of Rs. 6.00 per cent, per annum presumably to pressurise early payment of decree,

4. Awarding of future interest on the principles contained in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure is fundamentally a matter of judicial discretion. For aught we know the learned Single Judge was persuaded to allow Rs. 6.00 per cent, future interest because he had disallowed interest pendente lite. Mr. Bhandari's argument that ordinarily interest stipulated in a bond is not to be exceeded when future interest is allowed because the creditor has an additional security in the shape of a decree. May be a decree was equated to additional security in days gone by but today we are not prepared to take such a view because it has become almost a proverb in human behaviour that the misfortunes of a decree-holder ordinarily commence after the passing of the decree. Perhaps the rate of future interest in some cases could possibly act as a lever to accelerate the payment of the decretal amount. It is possible that this might have also weighed with the learned Single Judge in awarding interest at a rate higher than the one stipulated in the original bond or more than the interest claimed by the plaintiff in his cross-objection

5. Mr. Bhandari's next argument is that the interest could not have been allowed under Section 34 when the cross-objection was filed by the plaintiff and when the plaintiff himself claimed three per cent, the Court could not have exceeded it. Court's powers to render justice where it is due are not confined to Section 34, Civil P. C. Reference in this connection may be made to the provisions of Order 34, Rule 11. There is ample power in an appellate Court to give such relief which dictates of justice compel and sense of equity supports. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned single Judge was right when he awarded six per cent, per annum future interest against the defendant.

6. No other point was pressed in this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //