Commandant, 14 Assam Rifles vs K.B. Agarwal

H.K. Sema, J.—I have heard Mr. K. Meruno, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant as well as Mr. B.N. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) Dimapur in Monday suit No. 11/82. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Court below has decreed the Plaintiff suit for recovery of Rs. 12,248/- with a simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the recovery of the said amount.

This case otherwise illustrates a disquieting feature as to how the trial was protected to a period of about 14 years for getting final decree of Rs. 12,000/- and odd. In the present case, the Money Suit was filed on 15.4.82 and the same was decreed only on 13.2.97 after a lapse of about 14 years or so. Justice delayed is justice denied is being repeated in this case.

Be that as it may, Mr. K. Meruno makes a submission that the Appellant does not want to contest with regard to the decretal amount of Rs. 12,248/- but the Appellant is aggrieved only with regard to the interest of 18% to be paid from the date of filing of the Suit till the decretal amount is recovered. In this connection, Mr. K. Meruno submits that the delay was not caused by the Defendant alone and there was also a contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff in pursuing the suit diligently. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Sarmah contended that the delay caused in disposing of the suit was solely attributable to the Defendant. According to him, the delay was caused because the Defendant applied a dilatory tactics.

I have gone through the various order sheets and it would clearly appear from the order sheets itself that both the parties were negligent in pursuing his civil suit diligently because in some of the in pursuing the suit diligently, that is to say, even the plaintiff was negligent in pursuing his Civil Suit diligently because in some of the order sheets it has been shown that the Defendant appeared in the Court but the plaintiff did not appeared without showing any cause. It is common knowledge that the Plaintiff has to pursue his case diligently. At the same time, granting an interest at the rate of 18% appears to be too high in my opinion. While maintaining the decretal amount of Rs. 12,248/- intact, I am of the view that for the ends of justice, the rate of interest fixed at the rate of 18% per annum needs to be modified to the extend of 6% per annum.

With the aforesaid modification this Appeal is disposed of.

The Appellant is, however, directed to deposit the entire decretal amount along with the interest within a period of 60 days from today. If the decretal amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the amount shall carry an interest of 12% per annum from the date the payment is due till the payment is made.