AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 214/2003 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Shimoga have come up in this second appeal impugning the judgment of both the Courts below, in decreeing the suit of plaintiff and confirming the same in lower appellate Court. Admittedly, suit in O.S. No. 214/2003 is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,41,660/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit till date of recovery. There were transactions between plaintiff and defendants in respect of certain services rendered by the plaintiff in retreading the tyres of vehicles belonging to defendants 1 and 2 in their transport business. It is also not in dispute that there were several cheques issued by defendants to plaintiff. Since some of them were not encashed as and when they fell due, suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,41,660/- payable with interest @ 18% p.a. In the said suit defendants were duly served. They entered appearance, contested the suit on merits and denied their liability to pay the aforesaid suit claim. However, the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants in taking service of plaintiff by defendants 1 and 2 was not in dispute and it was not in dispute that there were certain cheques issued to the plaintiff by the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of which, certain amount was due to him. In the said suit, on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed, against which, defendants filed an appeal in R.A. No. 125/2011. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012 in upholding the finding of the trial Court in O.S. No. 214/2003.
Being aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 and 2 have come up in this second appeal contending that when the claim of the plaintiff was only for Rs. 1,06,000/- by including costs and interest has increased the same to Rs. 1,41,660/- which is erroneous. Over and above awarding interest of 9% on the said amount which includes not only the principal amount but also interest, is also erroneous and therefore, there is an error committed by both the Courts below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,41,660/- and the same is required to be interfered in this second appeal.
Heard the counsel for the appellants. Perused the judgment of both the Courts below.
On going through the same, it is seen that the objection of defendants 1 and 2 to the judgment of both the Courts below is only to the extent that when they are admitting the claim of the plaintiff is only to the extent of Rs. 1,06,000/- and rest of the money being interest and other costs, which is included in the decreetal amount and over and above 9% interest is awarded not only on the principal amount but also on the interest, is erroneous.
This Court is not in agreement with the grounds raised for the reason that admittedly, the suit of the plaintiff is for recovery of not only the principal amount, but accrued interest as on the date of filing of suit. In that view of the matter, as on the date of filing of suit, the total sum the plaintiff was entitled to recover is Rs. 1,41,660/- as he has rightly demonstrated before the trial Court through oral and documentary evidence. When that being the case, awarding of 9% interest on the entire suit claim appears to be just and proper. There was no necessity for the Courts below to segregate the principal amount and interest levied thereon, which together constitute the suit claim in O.S. No. 214/2003.
In that view of the matter, awarding of 9% interest on the entire sum of Rs. 1,41,660/- appears to be just and proper and interference with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below does not arise, in as much as, no substantial question of law arise for consideration. Accordingly, this second appeal filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 214/2003, on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Shimoga does not merit admission. Hence, the same is dismissed. Consequently, judgments of both the Courts below are hereby confirmed