IMPORTANT POINT
Principal sum adjudged for purpose of charging pendente-lite and pre-lite concerned, it is not what is principal amount borrowed under pronote, but suit amount.

Dr. B.Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The plaintiffs who filed the suit for Rs.3,15,853.50 Ps. with subsequent interest against the sale defendant which is for recovery of Ex. Al suit pro-note dated 9.1.1988 principal sum of Rs. 1,74,000 with interest thereon @ 27% per annum simple from the date of pro-note till date of suit (the suit filed on 16.1.1991 in view of the intervening Pongal vacation to the Courts from 1.1.1991 to 15.1.1991 both days inclusive) which interest comes to Rs.1,41,853.50, thus the suit claim is for Rs. 3,15,853.50 with subsequent interest thereon sought at @ 27% per annum and for costs; having been aggrieved by the trial Court’s decree and judgment decreeing the suit claim in part for Rs.1,00,000 adjudged as principal sum and Rs.1,97,253.97 as interest at 12% per annum on said principal sum from 9.1.1985 (as the Ex. Al suit pro-note dated 9.1.1988 held renewal of Ex.A2 earlier pro-note dated 9.1.1985 for Rs. 1,00,000 and for proportionate costs Rs. 10,624.50; by impugning the same preferred the appeal.

2. The contest of plaintiffs/appellants in the grounds of appeal as well as the submission during course of hearing by counsel for the appellants that the trial Court went wrong in not decreeing the suit as prayed for and also in reducing or scaling down rate of interest having held the Act No.4 of 38 has no application and hence to allow the appeal decreeing the suit as prayed for before the trial Court, with costs.

3. The sole dependant T.S.S.P. Rao, as sole respondent in the appeal since died, and his sons by name Ram Kishore and Madan Kishore representing his estate being his legal representatives brought on record as per the orders in CMP.No.5159 of 2000 dated 19.06.2000 as respondent Nos.2 and 3 of the appeal who are contesting the appeal by engaging advocate.

4. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that there is nothing to interfere with the trial Court’s decree and judgment in scaling down the rate of interest applying the usurious loans Act, for this Court while sitting in appeal and sought for dismissal of the appeal saying, the Ex.A1 suit pro-note is proved as renewal of earlier pro-note Ex.A2 and the charging of interest on interest does not arise as rightly concluded.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration to decide the appeal are:

1. Whether the suit transaction is a commercial or non-commercial transaction and whether the suit amount is to be scaled down applying the usurious loans Act or any debt relief law and if so what is the principal sum of the suit claim to adjudge under Section 34 CPC from the pre-lite interest on original sum and then what is the principal sum as on the date of the suit for awarding pendente-lite interest till date of decree and what is the decree amount to award interest post-lite from the date of decree till realization?

2. To what result?

Point No.1

6. As per the material on record, there is no dispute on execution of suit pro-note for the amount of Rs.1,74,000 to repay with interest at 27% per annum simple and the defendant, a businessman and the borrowal was not for any agricultural purposes, much less defendant an agriculturist; but for to say the suit pro-note is renewal of earlier pro-note principal sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest fallen due after payments for the total Rs. 1,74,000 and the rate of interest is usurious to scale down. Thus, the crux is to consider application of usurious loans Act and what as is the proof regarding market rate us relevant dates to say 27% is excessive scale down; so also to say any need to reopening of the suit pro-note transaction.

7. As per the evidence on record, the case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court as set out in the plaint was showing the avocation of the defendant as businessman besides the plaintiff’s avocation as advocate and of 2nd plaintiff as businessman. The plaint averments speak, having received consideration to discharge earlier pro-note executed by the defendant in fav