IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the application of interest rates under CPC, emphasizing the need for reasonable rates based on the nature of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 06.03.2002, in A.S. No. 73 of 1998 on the file of III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) confirming the decree and Judgment dated 25.03.1997, in O.S. No. 71 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. The Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 71 of 1992 seeking recovery of Rs.34,375/- the principal and interest, from the Defendant based on the promissory note dated 08.03.1989.

3. It is expedient to refer to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit to mitigate any potential confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated that the Defendant borrowed Rs.25,000/- from Plaintiff on 08.03.1989 and executed the suit promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum and the interest claimed in the suit is only at 12% per annum. Subsequently, Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to repay the same, but the Defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. The defendant is an agriculturist and he is entitled to the benefits of the Act 4/38 but not for the benefit of the Act 45/87.

5. The Defendant filed a written statement asserting that the plaintiff is an utter stranger to the defendant and he denied the receipt of Rs.25,000/- and execution of the suit pronote. He further asserts that the suit pronote is a forged one.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(ii) To what relief?

7. During the trial, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A.1. On the other hand, Defendant was examined as DW-1, but no documents were marked.

8. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs of Rs.34,375/- together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.25,000/-.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the Defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 73 of 1998 on file of the 1st Appellate Court. On scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal by its Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2002. Assailing the same, the Defendant preferred the present Second Appeal.

10. I have heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the Appellant/Defendant and no representation on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff.

11. Based on the Appellant’s contentions, the following substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal:

Whether the Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is in confirming with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC?

12. Before delving into the matter, since the Appeal is filed under Sec.100 CPC, this Court must see the scope of Section 100 of C.P.C.

13. In H.P. Pyarejan vs. Dasappa (Dead) by LRs. and Others, 2006 (3) A.L.T. 41 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

Under Section 100 of the Code (as amended in 1976), the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgments of the courts below is confined to hearing on substantial questions of law. Interference with the finding of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. [See Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, (1997) 4 SCC 713 and Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait, (1997) 5 SCC 438]

14. Considerations in Section 100 of C.P.C. arise only when there is a substantial question of law and not mere such questions of law or one based on facts. However, it has to be borne in mind that in case of misapplication of law and improper appreciation of evidence