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