Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. The defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed to the effect that the defendants can charge only 10% interest on the instalments and the resumption orders could not have been passed as the defendants failed to prove unauthorised construction of basement by the plaintiff. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff gave highest bid of Rs. 4,00,000/- for Booth No. 103, Sector 9, Panchkula which was allotted to him vide Memo No. 12351 dated 14.9.1988. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 40,000/- being 10% of the bid amount and another sum of Rs. 60,000/- to make up 25% of the total bid amount. Balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-was required to be paid in 10 half yearly instalments along-with interest @ 10% and in case of default, the defendants had a right to initiate action for imposition of penalty and resumption of the booth. It is claimed by the plaintiff that defendant No. 2. had wrongly calculated the due amount and in case of imposition of penalty for non-payment of instalment, the resumption proceedings should not have been initiated. It was also alleged that interest @ 18% compounded quarterly on the balance instalments has been wrongly charged. 3. In the written statement, the defendants admitted allotment of Booth No. 103, Sector 9, Panchkula to the plaintiff but it was averred that he had failed to pay instalments with interest despite several notices nor could show any cogent reason for non-payment of outstanding dues. Therefore, defendant No. 2. passed resumption order on 10.4.2001. 4. After the replication was filed by the plaintiff following issues were framed by the trial Court -- 1. Whether the defendants are entitled to charge only 10% interest on the delayed payments - OPP 2. If issue No. 1 proves in favour of the plaintiff, whether the office order dated 13.3.2001 is illegal and liable to be set aside- OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form - OPD 4. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit - OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not availed the remedy under the HUDA Act - OPD 6. Relief- Learned trial Court clubbed issue Nos. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form - OPD 4. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit - OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not availed the remedy under the HUDA Act - OPD 6. Relief- Learned trial Court clubbed issue Nos. 1 and 2 together and answered them in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 3. was answered in favour of the plaintiff in view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 2. Issue No. 4 was answered against the defendants and issue No. 5 was also answered against defendant No. 5, being not pressed. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The first appeal filed by the defendants also met the same fate. 5 Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the Courts below on the issue of interest is erroneous and illegal. It was alleged that the defendants could charge interest @ 18% compounded quarterly. However, I do not agree with his submission. In this regard, a decision of the- Hon-ble Apex Court in the case of Roochira Ceramics v. H. U.D.A. And others, 2001(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 617 - AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2380 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Aruna Luthra v. State of Haryana and others 1998(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 417 - 1997 (2) P.L.J, 1 can be cited in which charging of 18% interest by H.U.D.A was held to be illegal and it was held that H.U.D.A could only charge 10% interest. 6. Insofar second argument with regard to jurisdiction of the Civil Court is concerned, the learned lower Appellate Court has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of G.M. Wordsted Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority 1994 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 498 in which it has been held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred under Section 17 (3) of the H.U.D.A Act, 1977. 7. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Thus, both the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants were already decided by both the Courts below with the aid and support of precedents of the Apex Court and of this Court. 7. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Thus, both the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants were already decided by both the Courts below with the aid and support of precedents of the Apex Court and of this Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree of the Courts below as no question of law muchless substantial has arisen for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, the present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs.