Regular Second Appeal No. 3286 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3286 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 *** Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Rakesh Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay of 58 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. Through the instant regular second appeal, the defendant- appellants are questioning the legality and impropriety of judgments and decrees dated 17.11.2007 and 25.11.2005 passed by the learned First Appellate Court below as well as learned Trial Court whereby their action of charging interest @ 10% on the due installment along with 18% compound interest on the delayed payment of installment has been held to be illegal. It is apparent that the factual aspect of the matter i.e. allotment of booth in question in favour of the respondent and default on his part in making the payment of installment is not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the charging of interest on due installment as well as compound interest thereon. The learned trial court restrained the appellants from charging compound interest @ 18% and restricted the interest @ 10% simple on the delayed amount of installments, but the learned Appellate Court, rightly modified the judgment of the learned trial court while relying upon Clause 5 of the allotment letter as well as note appended in the last of the letter, to which the parties were held bound being a contract and the Regular Second Appeal No. 3286 of 2008 2 conditions thereof not assailed by the plaintiff at any point of time, held that the appellants are only entitled to charge interest @ 18% only on the due installment only which remained unpaid or paid with delay and not to charge interest @ 10% on the installment and to add interest @ 18%, in case of delayed payment of installment, meaning thereby the clause of charging 18% interest would only come in picture when the plaintiff commits default in making the payment of installment and not otherwise, which has to be charged on the agreed rate of 10%. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below is either illegal or perverse. It is well settled that this Court cannot, on re- appreciation of evidence, record a conclusion different than the one recorded by the Courts below. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 23,2009 Jiten