1.    This appeal is preferred by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 06.01.2009 rendered by the State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in complaint case No. 24/08.  By the impugned judgment, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund the excess amount of Rs. 80,26,730/- along with cost of      Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent.

2.      The case of the complainants before the State Commission was that plot No. 129, Sector-5, Panchkula was offered to them vide letter dated 20.11.1990.  The allotment was subject to certain conditions.  The respondents (complainants) were required to deposit Rs. 3,65,000/- being 10% of the amount at the time of submitting their application.  They were required to further deposit 15% of the amount.  They, accordingly, deposited the said amount of  Rs. 5,47,500/- on 14.11.1991.  Thus, they deposited 25% of the total cost of the plot to be settled in their favour.  The remaining amount of Rs. 27,37,500/- was to be paid either in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter or alternatively in eight half-yearly installments.  The installments, if any, were to be paid along with interest on the balance price at @ 10% interest over the remaining amount of consideration.  The condition further clearly shows that the interest shall accrue from the date of offer of possession.  The complainants did not pay the balance  amount and there was delay in the payment as well as in the issuance of the offer letter.  The complainants preferred representation and ultimately, the competent authority directed the Estate Officer to determine the amount with which the complainants were required to pay by fixing the date of offer of possession.    That date was previously taken as 23.11.1990 by the appellant and on such basis, interest was calculated.  The Estate Officer, vide order dated 21.12.2007, however, held that the date of offer of possession was to be treated as  01.08.2000 instead of 23.11.1990.  Obviously, from the deemed date of such offer of letter, the interest was required to be calculated.  The complainants were called upon to pay dues of Rs. 1,27,79,480/-  and extension fee of Rs. 1,26,722/- .  The complainants deposited the said amount and the plot was settled in their favour.

3.      The appellant’s case before the State Commission was that the amount was charged in accordance with the policy of the HUDA.  The appellant contended before the State Commission that such compound interest could be recovered when there was delayed payment.  The appellants further contended before the State Commission that the complaint was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.  The appellant further came out with a case that when the complainants deposited the entire demanded amount, impliedly, they were estopped  from taking about turn for seeking of further refund of any part.

4.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  The dispute lies in a narrow compass.  The only debatable question is regarding the amount of interest chargeable and the reasonableness of the recovery  made by the appellant.  So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, though the property is situated at Panchkula, yet, the appellant has its office at Chandigarh.  The question of territorial jurisdiction does not affect the merits of the matter and on such ground, the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with.  In this context, the guideline may be obtained from section 21(1) of Code of Civil Procedure.  The said section reads as follows :

  “21.  Objection to the jurisdiction :

            (1)  No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or Revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice”.

5.     A perusal of section 21(1) would make it amply clear that unless there is failure of justice on account of wrong place of suing, such objection cannot be entertained by the Appellate court.  So, unless, it is found that the appellant is subjected to any substantial injustice on account of  wrong place of the trial, we are of the opinion that such objection does not go to the root of the matter and will have to be repelled.

6.      Coming to the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to refer to term 5 of the letter of allotment.  The term No. 5 reads as follows:

“The balance amount i.e. 27,37,500/- of the above price of the plot, building can be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in 8 half yearly installments.  The first installment will fall due after the expiry of 6 months/ 1 year of the date of issue of this letter.  Each installment would be receivable together with interest on the balance price at 10% interest on the remaining amount.  The interest shall, however, accrue from the date of offer of possession”.

7.     A plain reading of term No. 5  goes to show that there were two options to the complainants in respect of the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 27,37,500/-.  First, they could have paid the entire amount in lumpsum without payment of  any interest within 60 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter.  Secondly, they were given option to pay the balance amount in eight half-yearly installments with interest on the balance price at @ 10% p.a.  That interest was to be calculated as per the terms of the agreement from the date of offer of possession.  This part of the agreement between the parties must be read together with the order of the Estate Officer whereby the offer of letter was treated to have been issued on 01.08.2000 when the development work was completed and not on 23.11.1990 when the project was incomplete.  It is, therefore, explicit that the complainants were at liberty to pay the entire amount of remaining consideration in lumpsum within 60 days and without any interest.  On their failure to do so,  they were required to pay the same in eight monthly half-yearly installments with interest @ 10% p.a.   What appears from the record is that the appellants charged 18% of the compound interest on the balance amount of consideration in accordance with the policy of the HUDA.   The respondent has placed on record statement of the account of the appellant which has been received after filing application under the RTI Act.  There is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant charged the interest amount in accordance with its policy decision notwithstanding the fact that the terms of the agreement   restricted the interest only @ 10% p.a.

8.    In a similar situation, this Commission in “HUDA Vs. Usha Vohra” -  RP No. 2191/2009, decided on 01.09.2009, interpreted clause 5 of the allotment letter as mentioned herein above.  In “Gian Inder Sharma Vs.  HUDA”- 2002 (2)  PLJ  469, it is observed that no compound interest can be charged on delayed payment of the additional price of the plot.  There are cases and cases.  The appellant could not be allowed to obliterate the terms of the agreement to which it was a party.  We are of the opinion that the appellant is bound by the terms of the agreement and should not have charged excessively. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of the State Commission is legal, proper and correct.  We do not find any substantial reason to upset that judgment.

9.    In the result, the appeal is dismissed as the same is without merits.  The appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the appeal to the respondent. The complainants will be entitled to get the amount which was deposited with the State Commission or in this Commission, as the case may be, along with interest accrued thereon, if any. 

        The personal appearance is dispensed with.