IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3406 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 30.5.2009 Om Parkash ......Appellant Versus Dharam Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.10140-C of 2008 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3406 of 2008 This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents was decreed for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization instead of a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.10.1996. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the Courts below have erred at law while granting interest to the plaintiff-respondents on the amount of alternative relief as in the agreement to sell in question there was no such stipulation that in the event of failure to perform the agreement, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the interest on the refund of the earnest money and thus, according to the learned counsel, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:- “Whether the interest at the rate of 12% per annum granted to respondent No.1 is against the condition of Agreement to Sale?” RSA No.3406 of 2008(O&M) -2- I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled that the Appellate Court can pass any just order by varying the decree or by granting the relief by passing an order which ought to have been passed and any relief which may be available to the parties to the suit, even if not specifically claimed, can be granted. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment and decrees. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. May 30, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE