R.S.A.No. 531 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 531 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ......Appellants Versus Gopal Krishan .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Narinder Sura, Advocate for Ms.Sheenu Sura, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.I.K.Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Ranjit Mehta, Advocate for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for declaration that as per the letter of allotment dated 12.1.1988, the defendants were entitled to charge simple interest @ 10% per annum on the balance sale price and not @ 18% compound interest on delayed payment of R.S.A.No. 531 of 2010 (O&M) 2 instalments. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Booth No.20 was initially purchased by Surinder Mohan in an open auction. The bid amount was deposited by the allottee and the remaining amount was to be deposited in instalments. The booth was got transferred in the name of the plaintiff and permission was duly accorded by the defendants vide letter dated 19.5.1987 and re-allotment letter was issued in favour of the plaintiff on 22.6.1987. The plaintiff raised construction over the plot allotted to him. A notice dated 24.4.1991 was served on the plaintiff by the defendants requiring him to pay a sum of ` 3,77,799/- and it was further stated in the notice that in case the plaintiff wanted to pay the said amount in instalments then a penalty of ` 37,780 would be imposed. Another notice dated 28.10.1991 was served on the plaintiff directing him to file an appeal before defendant No.2. A penalty of ` 26,610/- was imposed by defendant No.2. Another notice dated 1.5.1992 was served on the plaintiff, whereby he was informed that he had failed to make the payment. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to charge interest more than 10% per annum. Another notice dated 9.6.1992 was served on the plaintiff, which was duly replied by the plaintiff on 15.6.1992. Notice dated 25.5.1992 was served on the plaintiff qua resumption of the premises and an offer was also made to the plaintiff to pay the balance amount in four instalments and on failure of the plaintiff to pay the same, interest @ 18% per annum would be R.S.A.No. 531 of 2010 (O&M) 3 charged. The request of the plaintiff for appointment of arbitrator to determine the due amount was declined by the defendants. Defendant No. 2 resumed the site and also forfeited a sum of ` 46,580/- out of the amount deposited by the plaintiff. The plaintiff made an offer to pay the due amount in appeal. Consequently, the resumption order was set aside and the plaintiff was directed to pay the amount in instalments along with interest @ 18% per annum. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff had failed to pay the instalments and hence, he was liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by Section 50 of HUDA Act ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is badly time barred ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and R.S.A.No. 531 of 2010 (O&M) 4 conduct? OPD 8. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2008. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 3.10.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff has been allotted the booth in question. The plaintiff had failed to pay the instalments and consequently, notices were issued to the plaintiff to pay the balance amount with interest. The site allotted to the plaintiff was ordered to be resumed but the said order in appeal was set aside by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority. The dispute is only qua quantum of interest. The defendants are demanding interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of instalments, whereas, the plaintiff claims that he was liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to convince me that interest @ 18% per annum can be charged on the delayed payment of instalments. In these circumstances, learned first Appellate Court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. R.S.A.No. 531 of 2010 (O&M) 5 No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 09, 2011 anita