IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3273 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.12.2010 HUDA ......Appellant(s) Versus Surender Kumar Aggarwal & anr. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents was decreed holding that the appellant was entitled to charge only10% simple interest per annum and not 18% compound interest on the delayed payment. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the aforesaid suit was contested by the appellant raising various grounds including that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 50 (2) of the HUDA Act. However, both the Courts below returned a finding on issue of jurisdiction of the Civl Court against the appellant holding that charging of interest more than 10% was illegal and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be ousted on the basis of the provisions of Section 50(2) CPC. It is not in dispute that the demand of HUDA for 18% compound interest as per its policy had been the subject matter of various cases before this Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in the case of Roochira Ceramics v. Haryana Urban Development RSA No.3273 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Authority and others 2001 (1) PLJ 109 (SC), it was held that in case of default in payment of installment, HUDA was entitled to charge interest at the rate of 10% per annum and not 18% per annum. Since the resumption order was passed against the plaintiff- respondents in violation of the provisions of HUDA Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred in view of the law laid down in M/s G.M. Worsted Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. V. Haryana Urban Development Authority 1994 HRR 250. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. December 6, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE