Regular Second Appeal No. 1612 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1612 of 2009 Date of decision : September 14, 2010 Jagdish Kaur ....Appellant versus Amritsar Improvement Trust ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Ashok Yadav, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by Jagdish Kaur plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Defendant-respondent Improvement Trust, Amritsar vide letter dated 6.11.1986 allotted the disputed plot to the plaintiff-appellant pursuant to draw of lots held on 24.10.1986. The plaintiff had deposited Rs 6000/- vide receipt dated 2.8.1985 for the said plot. Defendant, however, cancelled the allotment of the plot as approval was not granted by Punjab Government. The plaintiff challenged the cancellation of allotment of the plot. The defendant-respondent broadly admitted the factual position Regular Second Appeal No. 1612 of 2009 -2- pleaded by the plaintiff. However, the defendant alleged that the State Government vide memo dated 4.12.1987 cancelled the allotment of plot and the plaintiff was informed accordingly as draw of lots was not approved by the Government. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 28.1.2010 it was held that the plaintiff cannot succeed to get the disputed plot from the defendant but notice of motion was issued regarding alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant for refund of the amount of Rs 6000/- with interest thereon at reasonable rate. On 20.4.2010, learned counsel for the respondent prayed for adjournment to seek instructions regarding refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs 6000/- with interest at reasonable rate. Thereafter two more adjournments were granted to counsel for respondent to seek necessary instructions. Learned counsel for the respondent today states that the respondent would consider the application if plaintiff moves application to defendant-respondent for refund of amount of Rs 6000/- with interest thereon. The response by respondent-Improvement Trust is very strange. This Court issued notice of motion to consider the prayer of plaintiff- appellant for refund of the aforesaid amount with interest. Three adjournments have been granted to counsel for respondent to seek instructions in this behalf. It is strange that respondent in spite of observation by this Court has not given any response to the aforesaid prayer of counsel for the appellant and wants formal application to be moved by plaintiff-appellant. This conduct of the respondent is strongly disapproved and deprecated. Regular Second Appeal No. 1612 of 2009 -3- Admittedly, the plaintiff-appellant had deposited Rs 6000/- with the defendant-respondent on 2.8.1985. The plaintiff-appellant was also successful in draw of lots and accordingly, the defendant even allotted the disputed plot to the plaintiff-appellant. However, Punjab Government did not grant approval to the draw of lots and therefore, allotment of the disputed plot to the plaintiff stood cancelled. However, the defendant- respondent while intimating the plaintiff about cancellation of the allotment of the disputed plot did not refund the amount of Rs 6000/- deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant. The minimum which was expected of the defendant-respondent was to refund the said amount of Rs 6000/- immediately to the plaintiff-appellant when the allotment of the disputed plot was cancelled. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent contended that cheque of Rs 6000/- had been sent to the plaintiff-appellant but she refused to accept the same. However, no such plea has been taken in the written statement and learned counsel for the appellant also controverted the aforesaid submission. There is no ground why refund of Rs 6000/- by defendant to plaintiff should not be ordered along with interest at reasonable rate. The courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter probably because it was not canvassed before the courts below on behalf of the appellant- plaintiff. However, substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal as to why refund of amount of Rs 6000/- deposited by the plaintiff with defendant should not be ordered with interest thereon at reasonable rate. Obviously, the said question has to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The defendant-respondent has unjustly retained Regular Second Appeal No. 1612 of 2009 -4- the said amount although defendant should have returned the same while intimating the plaintiff about cancellation of allotment of the disputed plot. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed partly. Judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is decreed for recovery of Rs 6000/- from the defendant along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum since 2.8.1985 the date of deposit of the said amount till 27.9.2005, the date of decree of the trial court and thereafter @ 6% per annum till recovery. The parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 14, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'