Dismissed

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow v. Prakash Singh S/O Sri Chamdra Bhal Singh.

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2025WRIC/1005136/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged orders in execution and revision proceedings regarding the calculation of interest on an allotment shortfall. The court found the 18% interest clause inequitable compared to the 6% rate elsewhere in the agreement and upheld the executing court's reduction, dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow Vs Prakash… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47464

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1005136 of 2008

¶4

Petitioner :- U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow Respondent :- Prakash Singh S/O Sri Chamdra Bhal Singh. Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Puneet Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Bhupendra Veer Singh,Ravindra Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent(s) as well as Shri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 20.02.2008 passed in Execution Case No. 04 of 2005 as well as the order dated 17.07.2008 passed in Revision No. 20 of 2008.

¶8

Brief facts of the present case are that, the respondent was allotted a property measuring 127 sq.meter yard with constructions raised thereupon, however, at the spot in question, the land in question was less by 25 sq.meter., which led to filing of Suit No. 288 of 2001. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 31.05.2002, wherein it was directed that the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with directions that within 60 days, the defendant to the suit will adjust the amounts deposited by the allottee along with interest thereupon at prescribed rate and after deducting the amount of 25 sq.meters reduced, the balance amount was to be paid by the defendant along with prescribed interest thereupon and further directions was issued for issuance of conveyance deed.

¶9

It is stated that in pursuance to the judgment dated 31.05.2002, a demand letter was prepared on 16.08.2002, quantifying the total demand against the respondent at Rs. 3,13,385/-. It is stated that as, no steps were taken for payment of the amount, as stated by the petitioners and no steps were taken for execution of the sale deed, as claimed by the respondent, an execution application came to be filed being Execution Case No. 04 of 2005, in the said application, objections were filed under Section 47 C.P.C. mainly on the ground that the allottee had not paid the amount along with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum, which is prescribed

¶10

in the hire purchase agreement in between the parties, executing court rejected the objections with directions to pay an amount of interest of 9% to the decree holder, the objections were rejected. Against the order of rejection of objection, Revision No. 20 of 2008 was filed, which came to be rejected vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2008. The said order is under challenged.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the executing court have gone beyond the decree in reducing the interest, which prescribed in terms of the hire purchase agreement at the rate of 18 % per annum.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that, the amounts which were deposited in excess by the respondents, the decree holder was returned along with interest at the rate of 6%, whereas, the demands are being made for interest at the rate of 18%. He, thus, urges that this Court should applying the doctrine of blue pencil in so far the excessive interest condition as stipulated and uphold the equitable orders passed by the executing court.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the bar, the demand of interest at the rate of 18% per annum, flowing from an agreement, which is primafacie inequitable as, the same agreement prescribes for payment of the amount by the allottes at the rate of 6% , whereas, it claims to be entitled to interest at the rate of 18%, primafacie, the petitioners have misused their position introducing an inequitable clause.

¶14

However, considering the fact that the petition arises out of two orders passed by the executing court and the revisional court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said orders.

¶15

The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly , dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Praveen

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow v. Prakash Singh S/O Sri Chamdra Bhal Singh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow v. Prakash Singh S/O Sri Chamdra Bhal Singh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt.Gayatri Singh and Another Vs the Court of Addi. District Judge Court No 5 Lucknow and Others

Sarvjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Lucknow Public College Thru. General Manager Sri Harshit Singh and 2 Others Vs Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act /Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Others

Chammi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Gulab Singh and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich and 3 Others

Smt. Nirmala Devi and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another