Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the demand of interest towards the additional price and the resumption of the plot in dispute for non payment thereof was illegal. As a consequence, the defendant-appellant was directed to offer possession of the plot to the plaintiff respondent immediately after completing development work. However, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent with regard to rendition of accounts was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-respondent was allotted a commercial plot No. 912 in Section 5, Kurukshetra vide allotment letter dated 2.3.1987 for a tentative price of Rs.1,07,215.50P. Fifteen per cent of the sale price i.e. Rs.60,090/- was payable within 30 days and the balance amount of Rs.80,456.60 was to be paid either in lump sum within 60 days without any interest or in six equal annual installments without interest till the offer of possession was made by the defendant-appellants. After the offer, of possession interest @ 10 per cent p.a. was chargeable. The possession of the plot was to be given to the plain-tiff-respondent only for completion of development work in the area. In case of failure to pay installments within the stipulated period there was a clause for imposition of penalty which might even result in resumption of plot. It is admitted position that the plaintiff-respondent opted to pay by installments i.e. six equal annual installments. It has been found that the schedule of payment was not strictly adhered to by the plaintiff-respondent and that the compensation payable to the original landlord was enhanced by the Court. The enhancement in the price was payable in terms of advertisement Ex.P2 and allotment letter Ex.P3. The additional price as determined by the Appellate Authority was payable within a period of 30 days of its demand. The dispute raised by the plaintiff-respondent was with regard to the additional price of enhancement of compensation payable to the land-lower. He also questioned demand of interest on the unpaid installment which was payable only after offer of delivery of possession. It has been found that the development work was far from completion despite the fact that tall claim was made by the defendant-appellant. He also questioned demand of interest on the unpaid installment which was payable only after offer of delivery of possession. It has been found that the development work was far from completion despite the fact that tall claim was made by the defendant-appellant. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the statement made by DW2 J.E., Ram Dutt Sharma who admitted that market of Sector 5 was not developed nor any dispensary had come up. He also accepted that parks etc. were still undeveloped. It has further been found that offer of possession was not made by the defendant-appellant. Therefore, it was neither entitled to interest on the tentative price being paid in installments nor on additional price demanded by way of enhancement in compensation. It is in the afore-mentioned circumstances that the lower appellate Court has made the following observations in paras 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37: 33. The appellant/defendant has not been able to show that even till date, there is any evidence or material on the file to show that the appellant/defendant has made any offer of possession to the respondent/plaintiff. 34. On the interface of this factual matrix, the learned lower Court was right in holding that the defendant is not entitled to charge interest from the respondent/ plaintiff as there is no offer of possession and as per Clause 6, interest could be charged only from the date of offer of possession and that to @ 10% and not more than this. Reference may be made to the authorities reported as M/s Shanti Kunj Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. U.T. Administration, Chandigarh 2001 H.R.R. 347 (P&H); Roochira Ceramics v. Haryana Urban Development Authority 2001(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 617 (S.C.) and Arun Luthra v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1997 H.R.R. 601 (P&H). 35. As regard payment of additional price, as it is part of the sale price of the plot it is subject to the same terms and conditions as are applicable to the payment of the tentative price. Thus, interest would not be chargeable even on this para of the sale price till offer of possession is made to the respondent/plaintiff in terms of Clause 7 of Ex.P3. 36. ****** 37. The applicant/defendant has nowhere proved that the enhancement of compensation paid to the landowners was correctly calculated and was further equally distributed on the land acquired. Thus, interest would not be chargeable even on this para of the sale price till offer of possession is made to the respondent/plaintiff in terms of Clause 7 of Ex.P3. 36. ****** 37. The applicant/defendant has nowhere proved that the enhancement of compensation paid to the landowners was correctly calculated and was further equally distributed on the land acquired. In the absence of this evidence, the learned lower Court was wrong in holding as under: However, recovery of enhanced amount from the residential allottee can be affected after excluding the land from shopping centre and other public premises etc. The defendants would be entitled to demand additional price of land, if any, which will be made as a result of award of the Court. 3. It was further held that on the ground of non-payment of interest by the plaintiff-respondent the plot allotted to him could not be resumed by the defendant-appellant. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court would be warranted in the concurrent findings of fact. Once the area has not developed nor the possession has been delivered in terms of the allotment letter Ex.P3, the plaintiff-appellant were not entitled to demand any interest. The non payment of interest, therefore, could not constitute a ground for resumption of the plot allotted to the plaintiff-respondent. Similarly, no interest on the amount of enhanced compensation could be awarded. The findings are based on cogent evidence. Even the law has been rightly applied by the Courts below. No question of law has been raised which may warrant admission of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is wholly without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal itself has been dismissed on merits, I do not feel any necessity of passing any order on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.