Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 555 (KAR)

C. MADHU v. B. V. S. MURTHY

2002-09-04

N.K.PATIL

body2002
N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed in SC No. 3672/1998 on the file of the XI Addl. Small Causes Judge, bangalore in so far as the prayer for rejection of the interest is concerned. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,500/- with future interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation with costs. The trial Court after hearing and considering the material on record and conducting the trial has allowed the suit filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the defendant with costs along with notice charges of Rs. 100/- without considering the rate of interest as claimed by the plaintiffpetitioner in that suit. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent is served and unrepresented. ( 4 ) THE principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court has committed an error and proceeded to pass the order contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act, in rejecting the interest claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that the plaintiff -petitioner is not entitled to the interest as she is not doing money lending business by obtaining the licence so as to claim interest upon the hand loan given to the defendant respondent nor the plaintiff has shown any provision of law to show that she is entitled to interest as claimed by her and even the trial court has gone to the extent of reducing the claim of the plaintiff in respect of notice charges from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 100/- without assigning any cogent reasons. Further the learned counsel submitted that when the trial court has accepted that the defendant has borrowed hand loan from the plaintiff, it is duty cast on the court to award reasonable interest. Therefore he prayed that the impugned order is not sustainable. ( 5 ) I have carefully perused the impugned order. The trial court has accepted the loan transaction between the parties and accordingly decreed the suit. Therefore he prayed that the impugned order is not sustainable. ( 5 ) I have carefully perused the impugned order. The trial court has accepted the loan transaction between the parties and accordingly decreed the suit. But, however without assigning any cogent reasons has rejected the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner in respect of interest on the ground that she is not doing the money lending business by obtaining the money lending licence. ( 6 ) AS per S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure "where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree or interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in additional to any interest adjudged on such principal for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit. " ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the provisions enunciated above, the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the decretal amount from the date of suit till realisation at the rate of 6% p. a. which is just and reasonable taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the transaction involved in the case. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the trial court ought to have directed the respondent to pay the agreed interest at 24% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote till the date of institution of the suit. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner having regard to the transaction between the parties and as the respondent himself has agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 24% from the date of execution of the pronote till the date of institution of the suit. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner having regard to the transaction between the parties and as the respondent himself has agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 24% from the date of execution of the pronote till the date of institution of the suit. Keeping in view of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as stated supra and having regard to the nature of the transaction between the parties, and to meet the ends of justice, in my considered view the interest at the rate of 6% per annum may be awarded. ( 8 ) FURTHER the trial court has given a finding that the petitioner is not a money lender or she has obtained licence under the relevant provisions of the Act. The trial Court has failed to note, one need not possess money lending licence if he or she intends to give money as hand loan nor it is the case of the petitioner that she is a money lender. Merely because the petitioner is not a money lender, it does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest which is agreed to be paid by the respondent. Therefore, the trial court has grossly erred in disallowing the claim of the petitioner with regard to the interest. It further erred in decreeing the suit only for the principal amount of Rs. 10,000/- without assigning any valid reasons. The said reasoning given by the court of Small Causes is not sustainable in view of host of judgments of the Apex court and this court. ( 9 ) AFTER carefully going through the impugned order and reassessing the matter thoroughly and reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence in my considered view, the revision filed by the petitioner is liable to succeed partly. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court in so far as it relates to non-consideration of the interest claimed by the petitioner is set aside. It is ordered that the interest is payable at 6% per annum from the date pf execution of the pronote till the date of realisation. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the office is directed to draw up decree accordingly. Petition partly allowed. --- *** --- .