R.S.A. No. 2234/2016 (MON). Case: Post Master General, Main Post Office and Ors. Vs Narayana. Karnataka High Court
|Case Number:||R.S.A. No. 2234/2016 (MON)|
|Party Name:||Post Master General, Main Post Office and Ors. Vs Narayana|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: B. Pramod, Advocate|
|Judges:||K.N. Phaneendra, J.|
|Issue:||Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 34|
|Judgement Date:||March 30, 2017|
|Court:||Karnataka High Court|
K.N. Phaneendra, J.
This Court on 28.3.2017, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the first appellate Court has committed any serious legal error in decreeing as prayed by the plaintiff, particularly awarding of interest at the rate of 21% p.a., prior to the filing of the suit and also subsequent to filing of the suit till the date of realization of the claim, against Section 34 of CPC and Kisan Vikas Patra Rules 1988."
The respondent, in spite of service of notice remained absent before this Court.
The learned counsel for the appellants, in support of the above said substantial question of law submitted before the Court that nowhere in the judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, it is mentioned that there is any contractual liability on the part of the appellants for payment of 21% of interest on the principal amount even if it is due to the respondent. The trial Court and the first appellate Court have not at all considered as to how the plaintiff is entitled for the interest at the rate of 21% as against the statutory principles u/s. 34 of CPC. In the absence of contract to the contrary, the courts are governed under the statute and the courts have to apply their mind while imposing interest and while decreeing the suit for money. Therefore, he contended that the first appellate Court has committed serious legal error in awarding interest at the rate of 21%. Though the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have paid the entire amount due, to the respondent, but after going through the entire materials on record, this Court found that the appellate Court is right in considering that, though the appellants have taken up that contention, but not established the case. In the above said circumstances, it is just and necessary for this Court to have brief factual aspects of the case and the findings given by the trial Court and the first appellate Court.
The plaintiff (respondent herein) Narayana son of Poojary has filed a suit against the appellants (defendants before the trial Court) stating that on 19.4.1994, the plaintiff has purchased three Kisan Vikas Patras through the third defendant having denomination of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- in Nos. 573309, 067003 and 067004. It is the contention that he lost the original Vikas Patras which were due for maturity on 19.10.1999. Therefore, it appears that he made an application before the third defendant for obtaining duplicate copies of the said three Kisan Vikas Patras. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants have refused to issue duplicate Vikas Patras and on the other hand, the third defendant told the plaintiff that he is not entitled to get any money. In the mean time, the plaintiff able to trace the original Kisan Vikas Patras and in fact he presented the same to the third defendant for payment. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have not paid any amount even after the maturity of the said Vikas Patras to the plaintiff. Therefore, he sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 81,800/- along with interest at the rate of 21% p.a., The defendants after their appearance have submitted that the plaintiff has obtained the duplicate Vikas Patras on the ground of originals being lost by him. Thereafter on 6.11.1997, he surrendered the said duplicate patras and encashed those duplicate Vikas Patras pertaining to him. It is specifically contended that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- could be paid across the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL