IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO. 1126 of 2006 Date of decision. February 8,2007 Haryana Urban Development Authority. .....Petitioner Versus Surinder Pal ......Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL PRESENT Mr. Arun Walia ,Advocate appellant. VINEY MITTAL , J( Oral ) Defendant Haryana Urban Development Authority is in appeal. In a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff, defendant has failed before the two Courts below. Both the Courts below have relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Roochira Ceramics v. Haryana Urban Development Authority 2000(1) PLJ 109 and have held that the defendant Haryana Urban Development Authority was not entitled to charge interest beyond the rate of 10 % PA on the sale consideration. The excess amount charged by the defendant has been directed to be refunded back / adjusted. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to law. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. February 8, 2007 ( VINEY MITTAL ) mamta JUDGE