The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand for interest at the rate of 18% and panel interest at the rate of 21% was without any reasons against the mandate of the law of Damdupat and even against the principles of the Indian Contract Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has arisen from judgment and decree dated 16.2.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.6, Ghaziabad dismissing the suit being original Suit No.679 of 2014 of the plaintiff. The parties are referred as plaintiff/appellant- respondent/ defendant.

3. The brief facts as they are culled out from the record and for deciding the sole issue raised for on consideration namely whether demanding interest at the rate of 18% and panel interest at the rate of 21% is bad and the dismissal of suit challenging this demand is bad in view of decision of this High Court in Writ Petition No.15950 of 2002 decided on 10.8.20211 and SLP decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9088 of 2015 (UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Swasthya Enclave Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and other) decided on 16.12.2016 are that the appellant is the cooperative society registered under U.P. Co-operative Society Act, 1965 ( hereinafter refereed to as "Act, 1965"). The suit was instituted on the ground that two acres plot was given to the appellant being Plot No.05 GH, 4 Vasundhara Ghaziabad on 19.11.1998 for a sum of Rs.2,67,06,537/-. The appellant had to make payment by way of installments. In the year 2000, the respondent decreased the area of the land making it to 1.25 acres and that the price of the said area is Rs.1,72,56,624/-. The plaintiff took the possession of the said land on 21.6.2021 and the lease deed was also executed.

4. The main grievance in the plaint was that the appellant deposited the amount for five years but could not pay installments. The respondents claimed 18% rate of interest and 21% as penalty interest for unpaid amount which was challenged as being unreasonable and against principles on which such interest could be demanded. The appellant showed readiness to pay 14% simple interest as according to them the said rate of interest which was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar matter where facts were identical. A reference requires to be made to a later judgment of this Court passed on 12.5.2015 in Writ C No.13223 of 2002 ( Swasthya Enclave Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another Vs. D.M. Ghaziabad & Others) wherein a stand was taken by the respondent that grant of 14% rate of interest by the Supreme Court should be granted. The court refused the same as the said order of the Apex Court was not to be treated as precedent. The respondent was asked to convey whether they still wanted to place reliance on their statement of relying on the said judgment which was refused.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel that the case of Assistant HNG Commissioner, Ghaziabad and others Vs. Shri Krishna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. has fixed the rate of interest to 14%. This fact was brought to the notice of learned Judge but the said finding is negatived.

6. The issue about demand of interest as demanded by defendant framed was answered against the plaintiff and suit was dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has heavily relied on the decision in First Appeal From Order No. 662 of 2004, judgment dated 16.3.2004 wherein in similar facts, 8% interest has been considered to be just and proper where 8% rate of interest granted has attained finality.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in SLP (CC) No. 2376 of 2012 decided on 13.3.2012 arising from FAFO No.662 of 2004 and contended that similar treatment be accorded to the plaintiff - appellant herein but not granting the same is bad in eye of law. This Court requested the respondent to mediate or re-conciliate but the proposal was rejected.

9. It is further submitted by counsel for appellant that the Court below has illegally reached to the conclusion that the judgment and order dated 13.3.2012 passed by Apex Court in SLP (CC