IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3570 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.12.2010 HUDA and others ......Appellant(s) Versus V.K. Sood and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents was decreed holding that the appellants were 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 appellants 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) HUDA Act. 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.3570 of 2009(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. CM No.10932-C of 2009 From the record, it is found that no orders have been passed on the application for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing this appeal. Since the main appeal has already been entertained on merits, delay of 33 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. December 6, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE