IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.425 of 2006 and C.M.No.853-C of 2006 Date of decision:18.02.2010 The Haryana Urban Development Authority & anothers ..Appellants-Defendants Versus Sudhiar Kumar Aggarwal ..Respondent-plaintiff CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr.Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the appellants . . . a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? AJAY TEWARI. J C.M.No.853-C of 2006 For the reasons recorded in the C.M., the same stands allowed and the delay of 88 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.425 of 2006 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondent for injunction restraining the appellant-HUDA for a declaration to the effect that the appellant-HUDA could not charge 18% interest and futher for injunction restraining the respondent-appellants from resuming the site in dispute. The brief facts are that the booth site was allotted to the respondent in the year 1988 at a price of Rs.6,00,000/- and he paid 10% of the amount at the time of the allotment and deposited another amount of 15% within 75 days and took over the possession. He was bound to make the entire payment by the year 1991 after paying the entire amount along with interest at the rate of 10%. However, he made no RSA No.425 of 2006 and -2- C.M.No.853-C of 2006 payment at that time but subsequently, made payment of Rs.6,18,000/- (between 23.03.2001 and 11.10.1993). Both the Courts below found that as per the letter of allotment the rate of interest chargeable was only 10%. The learned Lower Appellate Court further dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation also since the same was barred by 78 days' delay and no satisfactory explanation was given for the delay. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the present judgment and decree passed by the lower courts are against the evidence on the record ? (ii) Whether the Civil Court has the jurisidiction to decide the present dispute as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has specifically barred under Section 50 of HUDA Act ? (iii) Whether the respondent is liable to pay the 18% interest and penalty as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter for delayed payment ? As regards Question No. (iii), learned counsel has not been able to show any condition of the allotment letter as per which respondent was liable to pay the interest at the rate of 18% on delayed payment. It cannot be lost sight of that against the original price of Rs.6,00,000/-, the respondent has paid an amount of Rs.7,68,000/-. In case, there are any further dues which the respondent has to pay, the appellant is at liberty to recovery the same as per law in the light of the finding on the permissible interest rate. Question No.(i) is a general question. As regards Question RSA No.425 of 2006 and -3- C.M.No.853-C of 2006 No.(ii) under Section 50 of the HUDA Act, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred but this point has been rightly considered by the Courts below who have held that whether the authority concerned, without any basis acted beyond the powers given in the statute, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could not to be barred. Accordingly, holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal stands dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of. February 18, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE