RSA No.3410 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3410 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 28.04.2011 Market Committee, Ismailabad and another ……Appellants Versus M/s Jasmer Singh Baljit Singh …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J. S. Cooner, Advocate for the respondent. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendants-Market Committee, Ismailabad and its Secretary, are in second appeal, having lost in both the Courts below. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff-M/s Jasmer Singh Baljit Singh, Commission Agent, against the defendants-appellants. Admittedly in auction held on 02.02.2001 by the defendants, plaintiff was successful bidder of booth Plot No.198 in New Grain Market, Ismailabad. From the record, it appears that Chief Administrator of the Marketing Board approved the said bid vide letter dated 07.03.2001. Thereupon Market Committee issued allotment letter RSA No.3410 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - dated 10.04.2001 to the plaintiff. Twenty five per cent of the auction money was deposited in time. Balance amount was payable either in lump sum without interest within 30 days of the allotment letter or with interest @ 15% per annum in six half yearly installments. In case of default, penal interest at the rate of 4% per annum was also to be charged, in addition to the normal interest. From the record, it also appears that possession of the plot was delivered to the plaintiff on 04.06.2001 vide possession letter EX.D-3. However, the plaintiff did not pay the remaining installments in time. The defendants demanded penal interest on the balance amount in terms of the allotment letter. Plaintiff in the suit alleged that defendants did not provide facilities of water, electricity, roads, platform and sewerage etc. and consequently, defendants are not entitled to charge interest or penal interest. Defendants, however, alleged that the aforesaid facilities except sewerage had already been provided whereas sewerage facility was not to be provided by the defendants. It was pleaded that plaintiff is liable to pay interest in terms of the allotment letter. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2008 decreed the plaintiff’s suit to the extent that plaintiff is liable to pay interest only from the RSA No.3410 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - date of providing of basic amenities i.e 30.09.2003 and not from the date of auction. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. At the outset, it has to be mentioned that defendants are demanding interest from the date of allotment letter i.e 10.04.2001 and not from the date of auction. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent stated that plaintiff is ready to pay normal interest on the defaulted amount of instalments from the date of allotment letter, but the plaintiff should not be made liable to pay penal interest. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that respondent-plaintiff is also liable to pay penal interest in terms of the allotment letter. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another versus Amarjeet Singh and others, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 401. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has cited Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Om Parkash and others versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another, 2003(3) PLR 772. RSA No.3410 of 2010 (O & M) - 4 - I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiff is ready to pay normal interest as per allotment letter with effect from the date of allotment letter. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the appeal be disposed of accordingly. It has come in evidence of defendants’ witness Nihal Singh, Executive Officer-cum-Secretary DW-1 that amenities of electricity, sewerage etc. were provided on 30.09.2003. For want of basic amenities, the plaintiff could not have fully utilized the plot in question. On the other hand, in terms of the allotment letter, the plaintiff was liable to pay interest including penal interest. Consequently, without laying any precedent, the instant second appeal is allowed partly. Judgments and decrees of the Courts below are modified and suit of the plaintiff is decreed partly to the extent that the plaintiff shall be liable to pay interest at normal rate on the defaulted amount of instalments with effect from 10.04.2001, the date of allotment letter, but the plaintiff shall not be liable to pay additional or penal interest. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 28.04.2011 A.kaundal