JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. This Regular First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the court of Shri Lal Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi on 30th November 2006. Learned Judge decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 3,17,240/- along with cost and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the realization of decretal amount in favor of respondents. Trial Court Record was called for on 20.2.2007 which was received. Before we notice the grounds of challenge and submissions of the appellant, it would be appropriate to set out in brief the facts culminating in the filing of the suit and passing of the impugned order.
i) Respondent gave a temporary loan of Rs. 1,75,000/-(Rs. One lac seventy five thousand) to the appellant on 28.11.96. Respondent’s wife who is also the attorney of the respondent further gave a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the request of appellant. Respondent claims that it was verbally agreed that appellant would pay interest @ 36% per annum to the respondent and also return the temporary loan amount on or before 1.3.98.
ii) Respondent claims that appellant returned a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- in March 1997. Appellant issued a cheque of Rs. 2,06,000/- bearing No. 027935 drawn on Central Bank of India, Okhla Branch towards the balance payment of principal amount and towards the interest for the period 28.11.96 to 31.3.98.
iii) On 17.4.98, when the said cheque was presented for encashment through the State Bank of India, it was returned unpaid vide memo dated 19.4.98 for “insufficient funds”. The said cheque was again presented for encashment after discussion with the appellant and his father in law, on 29.6.98. The cheque was returned again vide memo dated 30.6.98. Hence suit was filed and decreed against the appellant. The said judgment and decree is assailed in the present appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. G.D. Gandhi contended that appellant had never taken any loan from the respondent. He submits that the cheque of Rs. 2,06,000 (Rs. Two lac and six thousand) in question had been given by the appellant as a Director of the company M/s Graffiti International Pvt. Ltd. in anticipation of the work of interior decoration which was to be done by the respondent. He further submitted that the cheque in question being without consideration was dishonored and no personal liability had been incurred by the appellant as it was for the work of the company M/s Graffiti International Pvt. Ltd., which was also not done.
3. Appellant urged that the respondent was over anxious to involve and implicate him so much so that he had not pursued the case against other defendant M/s Graffiti International Private Ltd. He contended that the trial court had failed to establish issuance of the cheque in question on behalf of the company without appreciating that the cheque in question bore the seal and stamp of the company and by issuance of the said cheque, the appellant had not incurred any personal liability.
4. Appellant further urged that the respondent’s wife and attorney had herself admitted that the loan of Rs. 1,25,000 had been given not by her husband but by her mother but she failed to produce her mother and thus, the said loan itself not been legally proved. Thus there was no subsisting liability against the appellant. Counsel for appellant Mr. Gandhi submits that the respondents claim of advancing Rs. 1,25,000/- to the appellant is not proved as no proof of cheque having been given has been tendered.
5. It is in the aforesaid background of facts and pleadings that we have to consider the challenge to the judgment by which suit has been decreed.
6. The main plank of appellants submission which arises for our consideration is the purpose for which the cheque for Rs. 2,06,000/- was issued by the appellant which has been returned unencashed. Appellants contention is that the cheque of Rs. 2,06,000 from M/s Graffiti International Private Ltd. of which appellant was a director was towards the work of interior decoration to be carried out by the respondent We find that there is no written purchase order or details of work to be carried out. No forwarding letter with regard to cheque or any other correspondence was ever exchanged relating to the work or its execution. Counsel for appellant has candidly admitted that no notice was ever issued to the respondent for not carrying out the interior work and no complaint was ever lodged. We, are therefore of the view, that the cheque issued by the appellant was not for any work of interior decoration but towards the liquidation of the loan by the appellant as claimed by respondent.
7. Next we come to the appellants contention with regard to respondents claim of advancing Rs. 1,25,000 which the appellant denies. Respondent has admitted the return of the same. We find that the present suit is based on a dishonored cheque. The finding of the Trial Court on this aspect is well reasoned and duly supported by evidence on record. Appellant has failed to show for what purpose the cheque was issued. We also notice that it is an admitted fact by the appellant that earlier also, Rs. 1,75,000/- was given to the appellant which was returned. Appellants contention of dropping of other defendants in the suit to implicate him is also not correct as the suit against other defendants was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.8.2001.
8. The Trial court has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 3,17,240/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the date of institution of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. We may note that in para 20 of the plaint, respondent had claimed a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum till 31st March, 2001 amounting to Rs. 3,17,240/-. Suit had been valued as Rs. 3,17,240/- and on this amount, respondent had claimed pendente lite and future interest @24% per annum. Curiously in the judgment while giving finding on issue No. 3, the trial court held the appellant liable to pay interest @ 36% on the sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- while awarding pendente lite and future interest @ 6% on the sum of Rs. 3,17,240/-. There is an obvious apparent error in the above as claim in the plaint itself was @ 24% on Rs. 2,06,000/-. On perusal of the evidence on record, we put to the learned Counsel for the respondent that except for a bald averment, there was nothing to support grant of interest @ 24% per annum. Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Chhabra during the arguments submitted that respondent would have no objection if the court was to modify the decree by awarding interest at the rate considered reasonable by the court.
9. In these circumstances, while dismissing the appeal on merits, we modify the decree by holding the respondent entitled to interest @ 15% per annum on the sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- from 1st March, 1998 till 31st March, 2001 and 6% on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,06,000/- with interest @ 15% as aforesaid, from the date of institution till recovery. Decree passed stands modified accordingly.
Aforesaid appeal is dismissed save to the extent aforesaid.