- (1.) C.M. No. 2896-C of 2012: This is an application under Section 149 CPC for making good the deficiency of Court fee. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she had made good the deficiency of Court fee. Application is allowed. C.M. No. 2897-C of 2012 This is an application seeking condonation of 35 days delay in refiling the instant second appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay of 35 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. R.S.A. No. 1079 of 20l2 1. The Haryana Urban Development Authority is in second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby, the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent had been decreed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she be declared the lawful owner/allottee of booth No. B-228 Sector 21-C, Faridabad and that the impugned order dated 17.04.2001 of resumption as also the subsequent notice dated 31.05.2001 issued by the HUDA be set aside being illegal, null and void. It was further prayed that the defendants/Authorities be directed to accept balance payment along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and a prayer for consequential relief of permanent injunction was also raised to restrain the defendants from dispossessing her from the booth in question. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had been allotted the booth in question for a price of Rs. 10,50,000/- out of which Rs. 1,05,000/- was deposited on 15.11.1996 at the time of auction and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 1,57,500/- had been paid on 18.12.1996. It was pleaded that as per terms and conditions of allotment, the plaintiff had to deposit the remaining amount in lump sum without interest within 60 days or in 10 half yearly installments along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The possession of the booth in question had been offered on 23.12.1996. Plaintiff pleaded that she had always been ready and willing to pay the balance amount in installments and had been making repeated requests to the HUDA authorities to accept the amount along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum but a demand of interest at the rate of 18% per annum had been raised. The resumption order of the booth in question had been passed on 17.04.2001, which was stated to be illegal as no opportunity prior to passing of the same had been given to her. Plaintiff pleaded that there was no delay on her part and as such the suit had been instituted.
(2.) The defendants contested the suit in terms of filing of the written statement admitting the booth in question having been allotted to the plaintiff in an open auction held on 21.11.1996 for a total consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/-. It was stated that the balance amount could have been paid in 10 half yearly installments along with 15% interest and in case of delayed payment 18% interest was chargeable. Defendants stated that in spite of possession having been offered vide letter dated 27.12.1996 and in spite of show cause notice having been served upon the plaintiff for deposit of the outstanding amount as also for personal appearance, the booth in question had been resumed vide order dated 17.04.2001. The objection regarding maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the civil Court to adjudicate upon the controversy was also raised.
(3.) The trial Court struck the following issues upon the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether the impugned resumption order dated 17.04.2001 and subsequent notice under section 18 dated 03.05.2001 are illegal, null and void because defendants have wrongly assessed amount on rate of interest 18% instead of 10% agreed between the parties? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the defendants had duly served a notice under Section 17 and 18 of HUDA Act upon the plaintiff? OPD 4. Relief.;