IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 552 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.12.2010. Fateh Chand and others …Petitioners. Versus Jagdish Chand and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the judgement and decree dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, whereby he upheld the judgement and decree of the learned trial Court. 2. The respondent, here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of contract and in the alternative for recovery of Rs.24,000/- i.e. Rs.12,000/- paid by them and Rs.12,000/- by way of liquidated damages as stipulated in the agreement. 3. The valuation of the suit is only Rs.25,000/- and therefore, no appeal under Section 102 of the CPC lies. Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies to the High Court only on a substantial question of law. Section 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 102 CPC specifically provides that no second appeal is maintainable in a suit, value whereof is less than Rs.25,000/-. The provisions of Sections 100 and 102, CPC cannot be circumvented by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An appeal is the creation of a statute and the legislature in its wisdom has decided that a second appeal will not lie in a suit valuation of which is less than 25,000/-. There is no occasion to entertain a CMPMO unless it is shown that there is some illegality involved or there is some perversity in the finding of the learned Trial Court. In the present case, I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. I find that both the judgments are based on appreciation of evidence and, therefore do not call for any interference in this petition. 4. Both the Courts below have come to a finding of facts that the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief of possession by way of specific performance of the contract. In view of the fact that the agreement was entered into the plaintiff was entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.12,000/- paid by him and another sum of Rs.12,000/- by way of liquidated damages in terms of the agreement. These are pure finding of facts which call for no interference in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 5. Shri Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has strenuously contended that since in the plaint no prayer for interest has been made the learned Court should not have awarded interest. It would be important to note that the main prayer of the plaintiff was that a decree for specific performance be passed and it was in the alternative that they had prayed for damages of Rs.24,000/-. When a person’s money is withheld he is entitled to interest. Furthermore, I find that this question was not raised before the learned lower Appellate Court. Similarly, the plea raised by the petitioner that the liquidated damages could not be awarded cannot be permitted to be raised in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since no such plea was taken before the Courts below. Since no question of law is involved nor there is any perversity in the judgements of the learned Courts below no interference is called for and the petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 15th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge