Full Judgment
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Plaintiff-appellant's filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,400/-. Trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 20,135/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of notice till the date of recovery of the amount. Being aggrieved with the same both the parties preferred two separate appeals. First Appellate Court dismissed defendant's appeal in toto. So far as appeal filed by the plaintiff is concerned, the same was partly allowed and suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,400/- was decreed in his favour. However, the rate of interest for the period from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization was reduced from 18% per annum to 9% per annum. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal for enhancement of rate of interest from 9% per annum to 18% per annum.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no occasion for the first appellate court to reduce the rate of interest from 18% per annum to 9% per annum on the decreetal amount, therefore, finding recorded by first appellate court to that extent is vitiated and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.
5. First appellate court has awarded interest only on original amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization @ 9% per annum. So far as powers of appellate court are concerned, it is relevant to mention that rate of interest has not been reduced for the period upto date of filing of the suit. So far as pendente-lite and future interest is concerned, it was within the discretion of the appellate court to award interest as well as rate of interest. There was cross appeal by the defendant before first appellate court. In addition to above, the first appellate court had powers to reduce the rate of interest under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C.
6. It is relevant to mention that second appeal can be entertained only on substantial question of law, but in my view, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, hence, the same is dismissed in limine.