JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Defendants, having lost in both the courts below, are in second appeal. 2. Respondent-plaintiff filed suit against defendants/appellants for recovery of Rs.8,89,213.24 alleging that as per order placed by the defendants, the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants, who made part payment, but failed to pay the balance amount in spite of assurance through written letters that the balance amount will be paid. Principal amount of Rs.5,77,411.20 remained due from the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed interest thereon @ 18% per annum amounting to Rs.3,11,802.04 till filing of the suit. 3. The defendants broadly denied the plaint averments and raised certain preliminary objections. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009, decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 5,77,411.20 along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of transactions till filing of the suit and pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.2012. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Plaintiff has led overwhelming oral and documentary evidence to prove its case. The plaintiff has placed plethora of documents on record i.e. order placed by the defendants upon the plaintiff for supply of the goods, invoices regarding supply of the goods, transporters’ documents regarding supply of goods, letters written by the plaintiff to defendants for making payment of the outstanding amount, letters written by the defendants to the plaintiff assuring to make the payment, part payment of Rs.20,000/- made by the defendants by way of bank draft and also sales tax C-Forms regarding purchase of goods by defendants from the plaintiff. To the contrary, there is self-serving statement of defendant no.2, who is also Proprietor of the defendant no.1. The aforesaid overwhelming documentary and oral evidence, which is cogent and reliable, has not been rebutted by defendants in any manner. Defendant no.2, in the witness-box, admitted that sales tax forms had been issued to them by the sales tax department. The said forms were furnished by the defendants to the plaintiff regarding purchase of goods in question. The aforesaid overwhelming documentary and oral evidence, which is cogent and reliable, has not been rebutted by defendants in any manner. Defendant no.2, in the witness-box, admitted that sales tax forms had been issued to them by the sales tax department. The said forms were furnished by the defendants to the plaintiff regarding purchase of goods in question. However, defendants came out with palpably false plea that plaintiff has stolen the said blank forms of the defendants. It is surprising that the litigants are taking the Courts for a ride by taking liberty to make any false and wild averment. The plaintiff Company is based at Bangalore, whereas defendants are based at Ludhiana. The question of plaintiff-Company stealing the C-Forms at Ludhiana could not even be imagined. The defendants never lodged any complaint regarding alleged theft of C-Forms. Defendants have merely set up case of denial, which is completely untenable. There is also no denial or explanation regarding payment of Rs.20,000/- made by way of bank draft by the defendants to the plaintiff. There are also letters written by the defendants assuring the plaintiff that payment would be made. 7. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence led by the plaintiff, there is no escape from the conclusion that the plaintiff’s suit has been rightly decreed by the courts below. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff is fully justified by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. The said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on the basis of evidence on record. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant any interference. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. 8. Counsel for the appellants prayed for some relief in rate of interest. However, the courts below have already favoured the defendants by granting pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum only to the plaintiff, although the suit amount is due on the basis of commercial transaction, and therefore, pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum awarded by the courts below is rather on the lower side. Interest @ 12% per annum till filing of the suit is reasonable and modest rate, not warranting any reduction or modification. Interest @ 12% per annum till filing of the suit is reasonable and modest rate, not warranting any reduction or modification. The defendants, instead of spending on litigation by filing first and second appeals, should have utilized the amount to discharge their liability by making payment to the plaintiff. 9. The necessary result is that the appeal is completely frivolous and is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------