← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/4972/2005allowed

(O&M) Estate Officer, Huda, Kaithal & ORS. v. Ratna Ram Malik

2016-03-11Mr. Justice Harbans Singh Rai2 pages

C.R. No.4972 of 2005 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4972 of 2005 Date of Decision.11.03.2016 Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others .......Petitioners Vs.

Ratna Ram Malik ........Respondent

Present:

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

None for the respondent.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

The revision is against an order passed by the Appellate Court in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. The plaintiff had pending suit obtained the relief of injunction against HUDA authorities from claiming interest till the certain works have been accomplished by HUDA. The HUDA issued a notice after the interim order was passed directing the plaintiff to pay three charges as under:- "1. Compounding charges of violations :Rs.3991.00

2. Due against instalments :Rs.36610.00

3. Amount of enhancement :Rs.20775.00"

2.

The plaintiff complained that the notice constituted a willful disobedience of order of injunction. The contest entered by HUDA was that none of charges of claim made, constituted a demand for interest and therefore, there was no disobedience of the order. The PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.03.16 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.4972 of 2005 -2trial Court accepted the contention taken in defence and dismissed the application. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the Appellate Court has held that compounding charge is akin to demand of compound interest. Except the phonetic similarity of the expression, there is hardly anything similar to compounding interest and compounding charges. 3.

The order is erroneous and it is set aside. The civil revision is allowed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 11, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.03.16 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document