ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) I.A. No. 2759 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of 57 days in filing of the Appeal. Having heard the parties and considered the explanation for the delay, we allow the I.A. application and take up the Appeal for disposal on merits. 2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 23.11.2012 allowing C.W.J.C. No. 14420 of 2005, directing refund of earnest money deposited for the Flat, along with 12% interest with quarterly rests within a period of eight weeks, failing which interest shall have to be paid at the rate of 18%. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that after the writ petition was filed in the year 2005, a refund notice dated 16.7.2008 was sent to the respondent. Unfortunately, the Board was not represented before the learned Single Judge and this fact could not be brought to the attention of the Court. Nonetheless it was the duty of the respondent to fairly place the letter dated 16.7.2008 before the Court. The direction for payment of 12% interest came to be passed as the Court opined that no effort was made by the Board to make refund. Furthermore, the Court also opined that no allotment had been made to the respondent, when the fact is that allotment order had in fact been issued on 6.6.2001 for M.I.G. Flat No. 7MK-6/4. Reliance is placed on (2005) 7 SCC 103 (Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Arun Dakshy) to contend that under Regulation 45, not more than 5% interest could have been awarded. 4. Counsel for the respondent submitted on oral instructions that the letter dated 16.7.2008 purporting to offer refund of earnest money was never received by the respondent. It was an afterthought during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore the order of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference. In the circumstances of the case, 20% deduction from the earnest money sought to be done by the Board as mentioned in the letter dated 16.7.2008 was also illegal. 5. The order for refund dated 16.7.2008 was issued vide Office Order No. 201/2005-3865. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, there shall be a presumption that the official communication by the Board was issued properly in normal course of business and was to be delivered to the respondent. The presumption is rebuttable. 5. The order for refund dated 16.7.2008 was issued vide Office Order No. 201/2005-3865. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, there shall be a presumption that the official communication by the Board was issued properly in normal course of business and was to be delivered to the respondent. The presumption is rebuttable. The onus of rebuttal lies on the respondent. While an oral submission has been made by us that no such letter was received, the reply filed to the affidavit enclosing letter dated 16.7.2008 is completely silent on the aspect that it was allegedly never received by the respondent. We therefore find it difficult to accept the oral submission contrary to the affidavit of the respondent. 6. A litigant coming to the Court has the foremost duty to be fair and honest by placing all necessary and relevant facts leaving it for the Court to adjudicate. If the Appellants had issued a letter for refund on 16.7.2008, fairness required the respondent to place it before the Court even if nobody was appearing on behalf of the Board and leave the conclusion for the Court after putting forth its own contention in denial to the same. Unfortunately, in our opinion the respondent did not act very fairly on this aspect in the pending writ application. 7. In Arun Dakshy (supra) on the question for grant of interest by the Appellant, it has been held at Paragraph-7 as follows:- “7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended and in our opinion rightly, that the Commission should not have travelled beyond the interest regulated by the statutory regulations, which fixed at 5% and awarding 18% interest dehors Regulation 45 of the said Regulations. In the instant case, in the Regulations itself, namely, Regulation 45 provides that simple interest @ 5% will be payable on the money so deposited. The Regulations being self-contained and the interest payable under the Regulations being regulated by the statute under Regulation 45 of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulations, the Commission should not have travelled beyond the pale of statutory regulation, apart from awarding interest @18% at the flat rate being deprecated by this Court in Balbir Singh.” 8. We therefore set aside the order under Appeal only to the extent that it grants 12% interest. We therefore set aside the order under Appeal only to the extent that it grants 12% interest. If the legitimate dues with interest @ 5% from the due date till payment are not paid within a period of four weeks, the order of the learned Single Judge directing 18% interest in default shall become operative. 9. The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.