SANJAY BHAMBRI AND ANOTHER Vs. HUDA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit seeking declaration qua setting aside of the resumption order dated 10.07.2000 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Administrator. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants-plaintiffs submits that shop-cum-flat bearing No.69, situated in Sector-16, Part-II, Faridabad was allotted to the appellant-plaintiff vide allotment letter dated 11.01.1996. As per the terms and conditions of the same, after receipt of 25%, the balance amount was required to be deposited within 60 days or in 10 half yearly installments containing the element of interest at the rate of 10% p.a. The HUDA initiated the resumption proceedings. Notice of the resumption proceeding was never received by the appellant, resulting into passing of the ex parte resumption order dated 10.07.2000. Appeal was filed against the same (Ex.D10) enclosing the draft of Rs. 10,00,000/- but same was also dismissed. Having left with no other option, invoked the jurisdiction of the trial Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 20.11.2000. Along with suit, moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ad-interim seeking restraint, much less, creating of third party right. During the course of hearing, it was agreed that the plaintiff shall offer an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and ultimately it was increased to Rs. 30,00,000/-. The draft was sent but returned back. On this HUDA changed the counsel. Both the Courts below have not addressed the issue with regard to the charging of the simple interest at the rate of 18% p.a. or compound interest. He further submits that resumption order should be last resort and it should not be passed mere drop of hat and thus urges this Court for formulation of following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) Mr. Saurabh Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-defendant submits that allotment letter envisages the imposition of penalty in case of default. After depositing of 25% amount, allottee/plaintiff did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. HUDA having left with no other option had to resort to the resumption proceedings. Suit has been held to be not maintainable in view of the provision of SubSection 2 of Section 50 of HUDA Act. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred and thus urges this Court for affirmation of the findings rendered by both the Courts below.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.