High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Kiran Pal Jain v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and - RSA-851-2006  RD-P&H 1076 (22 February 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No. 851 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 2, 2006
Kiran Pal Jain
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate
for the appellant.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
For the reasons stated in the application the delay filing the present appeal is condoned.
The plaintiff has lost before the first Appellate Court and is in appeal before this Court. He filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction., challenging the notices issued under Sections 17 (1) and 17 (2) of the Haryana Urban Development Act. It was claimed that the aforesaid notices dated June 11, 2006 and August 6, 2001 were illegal, bad and violative of the principles of natural justice and were not binding upon the plaintiff.
The facts which emerge from the record show that the plaintiff had purchased a booth in the year 1988. At the time of the initial allotment, he had R.S.A. No. 851 of 2006 (O&M) 
deposited 10% of the sale price. 15% of the price was deposited later on. The remaining price was to be deposited in instalments. The plaintiff did not deposit the remaining amount. Consequently, action under the provisions of the Act was initiated against him for resumption of the booth in question.
The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
However, the matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The learned first Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff had failed to deposit any of the instalments after the initial deposit of 25%, therefore, even the plea taken by him that the amount of instalments was not deposited on account of the fact that amenities had not been provided, could not be accepted. The learned first Appellate Court also noticed that at no point of time, the plaintiff had raised any grievance against the non- grant of any amenities and in fact, the said defence had been taken merely as an excuse for not paying the instalments. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
March 2, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.