R.S.A. No.2979 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2979 of 2009(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 21 st APRIL, 2011 Ram Parkash .... Appellant Versus The Chairman/Administrator of Market Committee, Panipat & others. .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 and 4. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-Ram Parkash who was successful in the trial court but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court has filed the instant second appeal. Defendants allotted shop plot in New Grain Market, Panipat to the plaintiff vide allotment letter dated 23.02.1991 on total price of Rs.3,39,000/- out of which 25% was paid by the plaintiff. Balance amount was payable in six half yearly installments along with interest rate @ of 12.5% per annum with penal interest @ 4% per annum on delayed installments. The plaintiff admittedly committed default in timely payment of the installments and also did not pay the interest amount. Defendants served various notices on the plaintiff requiring him to pay the balance amount. The plaintiff challenged the last notice dated 23.02.2001 being illegal and null and void. The defendants pleaded that plaintiff himself has not deposited the R.S.A. No.2979 of 2009 (O&M) -2- balance sale consideration with interest in spite of notices dated 15.07.1993, 20.03.1995, 07.09.1995, 05.07.1999, 22.07.1999 and 23.02.2001. The said notices are legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring impugned notice dated 23.02.2001 to be null and void and giving the liberty to the defendants to charge interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of installments and plaintiff was directed to pay the same within one month of receiving calculation of the said due amount. However, first appeal preferred by defendants No.1 and 2 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant repeatedly and emphatically contended that principal sale consideration has already been paid and the defendants are not entitled to charge interest at the rates mentioned in the allotment letter. The contention cannot be accepted. Last payment was made by the plaintiff vide receipt Exhibit P-4 dated 28.03.2001 i.e. more than 10 years after the allotment. However, the plaintiff did not pay any interest although compound interest was chargeable as per allotment letter. Rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the allotment letter because the plaintiff's entire claim is based on the allotment letter. Without said allotment letter, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The R.S.A. No.2979 of 2009 (O&M) -3- plaintiff is bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The allotment letter specifically provides that interest on the amount of installments shall be payable @ 12.5% per annum and in case of delayed payment of installments, penal interest @ 4% per annum shall also be payable. Lower appellate court has, therefore, rightly held the plaintiff liable to pay the same. Approach of the trial court in directing interest @ 6% per annum only was patently perverse and illegal and has, therefore, been rightly set aside by the lower appellate court. There is no basis for awarding interest @ 6% per annum, as was ordered by the trial court. There is no ground for the plaintiff for not paying interest at the agreed rate as per terms of the allotment letter which is the sole basis of the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself committed default by not paying the installments of balance price in time. Market rate of interest was very high in the year 1991 when the allotment was made and modest rate of interest at 12.5% per annum only was stipulated by the defendants against much higher rate of interest prevalent in the market at that time. Plaintiff is, therefore, liable to pay interest at the agreed rate as per allotment letter. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is completely frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 21st April, 2011 'raj'