KULDEEP SINGH Vs. HUDA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm-6595-C-2010

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration with consequent relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed, in essence, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside.

(3.) Mr. Gorav Kathuria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submits that a booth shop bearing No.258 in Sector 7-B, Faridabad had been allotted to the appellant-plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,37,500/-, out of which Rs.23,750/- being 10% was paid at the time of auction and Rs.35,625/- in order to make 25% of the price was paid within 30 days of the issue of allotment letter. The appellant-plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,04,375/-, but thereafter, remaining installments could not be paid. He submits that the installments entail the interest @ 10%. HUDA started imposing interest @ 18% which is not permissible in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roochira Ceramics V/s HUDA and others, 2002 9 SCC 599. It is, in this background of the matter, the suit, aforementioned, was filed as the action of the HUDA was without jurisdiction, therefore, bar as envisaged under Section 50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short 'the 1977 Act') would not come into play, but the lower Appellate Court has non-suited the appellant-plaintiff on this ground alone, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgment and decree under challenge.