Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. Cm No.3137-C of 2009 2. There is a delay of 31 days in filing this appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with this appeal. 3. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. However, no reply has been filed. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which have remained unrebutted, delay of 31 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. application stands disposed of. CM No.3136-C of 2009 5. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 14 days in re-filing this appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. application stands disposed of. RSA no.1092 of 2009 6. This is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction has been decreed holding that resumption order dated 1.10.2003 and the appellate order dated 27.2.2004 are illegal, null and void. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Respondent-plaintiff failed to make payment of the plot in question allotted to him by the appellants. The aforesaid plot in question was resumed vide order dated 1.10.2003 by the competent authority on the ground of non payment of balance amount to the tune of 90% of the total sale price. 7. Against the aforesaid order, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 27.2.2004. The aforesaid two orders were challenged by the respondent in the present suit raising various grounds. 8. Upon notice, the defendants raised various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that since the plaintiff has failed to deposit 90% balance amount of the price of the plot in question, the resumption proceedings as well as the order of the appellate authority were legal. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1. Whether the resumption order dated 1.10.2003 and the order in appeal dated 27.2.2004 are illegal, null and void? 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. 10. Whether the resumption order dated 1.10.2003 and the order in appeal dated 27.2.2004 are illegal, null and void? 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. 10. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court recorded a finding of fact on issue No.1 that the defendants/appellants were entitled to take the balance actual price of the plot + enhanced price + penalty + interest from the plaintiff. However, relying upon the judgment in M/s Teri Oat Estate (P) Ltd. V/s. U. T. Chandigarh and Ors.2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 540 and taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff who belonged to a weaker section of the society and the plot in question was allotted to him on the basis of a scheme of Earning of weaker Section which was produced on record, it was held that the rate of interest as applied by the appellants shall cause hardship to him and the same be not applied against the plaintiff and further taking into consideration all the factors, the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Onus to prove the issues No.2 and 3 was upon the appellant, however, no arguments were raised by the appellants on the aforesaid issues and, therefore, those issues were found against the appellants. Lower appellate court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 12. It is relevant to mention here that in the appeal before the lower appellate court, though, appellant raised arguments in support of the merits of the case, however, no argument was raised on behalf of the appellants distinguishing the judgment of M/s Teri Oat Estate (P) Ltd. s case (supra ). RSA no.1092 of 2009 -: 4 :- Neither any argument was raised before the lower appellate court submitting therein that the aforesaid judgment was wrongly applied and was not applicable in the facts of the present case. Even before this court, the learned counsel for the appellants was unable to state that the judgment of this case in the aforesaid case was wrongly applied in the present case. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar V/s. Nilima Mandal and Anr. Even before this court, the learned counsel for the appellants was unable to state that the judgment of this case in the aforesaid case was wrongly applied in the present case. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar V/s. Nilima Mandal and Anr. , JT 2008 (13) SC 255 has authoritatively laid down that a substantial question of law, based upon an argument which was not raised before the courts below, cannot be allowed to be raised in the Regular Second Appeal. 13 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal. The substantial questions of law as raised by the appellants as enumerated in Para 11 of the Grounds of Appeal do not arise from the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. No merit.