JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. Heard Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has arisen from judgment and decree dated 16.2.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.6, Ghaziabad dismissing the suit being original Suit No.679 of 2014 of the plaintiff. The parties are referred as plaintiff/appellant- respondent/ defendant. 3. The brief facts as they are culled out from the record and for deciding the sole issue raised for on consideration namely whether demanding interest at the rate of 18% and panel interest at the rate of 21% is bad and the dismissal of suit challenging this demand is bad in view of decision of this High Court in Writ Petition No.15950 of 2002 decided on 10.8.20211 and SLP decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9088 of 2015 (UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Swasthya Enclave Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and other) decided on 16.12.2016 are that the appellant is the cooperative society registered under U.P. Co-operative Society Act, 1965 ( hereinafter refereed to as "Act, 1965"). The suit was instituted on the ground that two acres plot was given to the appellant being Plot No.05 GH, 4 Vasundhara Ghaziabad on 19.11.1998 for a sum of Rs.2,67,06,537/-. The appellant had to make payment by way of installments. In the year 2000, the respondent decreased the area of the land making it to 1.25 acres and that the price of the said area is Rs.1,72,56,624/-. The plaintiff took the possession of the said land on 21.6.2021 and the lease deed was also executed. 4. The main grievance in the plaint was that the appellant deposited the amount for five years but could not pay installments. The respondents claimed 18% rate of interest and 21% as penalty interest for unpaid amount which was challenged as being unreasonable and against principles on which such interest could be demanded. The appellant showed readiness to pay 14% simple interest as according to them the said rate of interest which was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar matter where facts were identical. A reference requires to be made to a later judgment of this Court passed on 12.5.2015 in Writ C No.13223 of 2002 ( Swasthya Enclave Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another Vs. A reference requires to be made to a later judgment of this Court passed on 12.5.2015 in Writ C No.13223 of 2002 ( Swasthya Enclave Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another Vs. D.M. Ghaziabad & Others) wherein a stand was taken by the respondent that grant of 14% rate of interest by the Supreme Court should be granted. The court refused the same as the said order of the Apex Court was not to be treated as precedent. The respondent was asked to convey whether they still wanted to place reliance on their statement of relying on the said judgment which was refused. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel that the case of Assistant HNG Commissioner, Ghaziabad and others Vs. Shri Krishna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. has fixed the rate of interest to 14%. This fact was brought to the notice of learned Judge but the said finding is negatived. 6. The issue about demand of interest as demanded by defendant framed was answered against the plaintiff and suit was dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has heavily relied on the decision in First Appeal From Order No. 662 of 2004, judgment dated 16.3.2004 wherein in similar facts, 8% interest has been considered to be just and proper where 8% rate of interest granted has attained finality. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in SLP (CC) No. 2376 of 2012 decided on 13.3.2012 arising from FAFO No.662 of 2004 and contended that similar treatment be accorded to the plaintiff - appellant herein but not granting the same is bad in eye of law. This Court requested the respondent to mediate or re-conciliate but the proposal was rejected. 9. It is further submitted by counsel for appellant that the Court below has illegally reached to the conclusion that the judgment and order dated 13.3.2012 passed by Apex Court in SLP (CC) No. 2376 of 2012 between Assistant H.N.G. Commissioner, Ghaziabad and others Vs. Shri Krishna Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited is not binding precedent and the ratio of the said judgment cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case and dismissed the suit. 10. Shri Krishna Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited is not binding precedent and the ratio of the said judgment cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case and dismissed the suit. 10. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the Court below has failed to consider the ratio of judgment dated 13.3.2012 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (CC) No. 2376 of 2012 between Assistant H.N.G. Commissioner, Ghaziabad and others Vs. Shri Krishna Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Court below has also illegally reached the conclusion that the plaintiff - appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands. The said conclusion of the Court below is illegal and against the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as the material evidence adduced by the plaintiff available on record, hence the findings recorded by the Court below are vitiated by law and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff - appellant was required to pay said amount in 8 quarterly installments w.e.f. 01.10.1998. It is totally wrong to assert that in case of installment, the society was supposed to pay 8 installments of Rs.41,83,900/- each. The allotment letter dated 19.11.1998 specifically provides that above mentioned amount either by cash / cheque or draft would be deposited in the Allahabad Bank, Branch Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. In case the amount of installment was not deposited within stipulated period of time then from the date of deposit of first installment, what additional interest would be liable to be paid by the society was not fixed. It is further submitted that an amended allotment letter dated 2.11.2000, the defendant Awas Vikas Parishad has reduced the area of the plot in question from 2 acres to 1.25 acres and the cost of the land has also been reduced to the tune of Rs.1,72,56,624/- only but strange enough the repayment scheduled as provided in the initial allotment letter dated 19.11.1998 was neither changed nor amended in pursuance of the amended allotment letter dated 2.11.2000 whereby the area and the cost of the land allotted to the appellant - plaintiff has been reduced and there is no new re-schedule plan issued by the defendant - respondent for assuring the payment of the land in dispute. The society has already deposited a sum of Rs.98,74,877/- upto 8.6.2001 which is more than 50% of the cost of land. The possession of the aforesaid allotted land was handed over to the appellant society on 21.6.2001. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that enhanced liability fastened is just and proper. The rate of 18% interest and 21% panal interest on plaintiff has already been enhanced and the plaintiff was obliged to pay the amount with interest. The judgment of Supreme Court passed in SLP (CC) No.2376 of 2012 ( Assistant H.N.G. Commissioner, Ghaziabad and others Vs. Shri Krishna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.) cannot apply to the facts of this case. 12. For the reasons mentioned herein below, we cannot concur with the judgment of the Court below and it is bad on facts and law.The amount of interest recoverable, at any one time cannot exceed the principal as per judgment in Dhondu v. Narayan, (1863) 1 Bom HC 47. Law of Damdupat says that a creditor is not entitled at any one time to recover interest exceeding the amount of principal. It doesn't say that a creditor shall not in any case be entitled to interest exceeding the principal. 13. The suit could not have been dismissed. The reasonings and finding on most of eleven issues are not only the perverse but there is no discussion whether there was any contract to the contrary by and between the parties for demanding 18% interest and the panel interest would be 21%. 14. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the Apex Court has decided the appeal holding that rate of interest would be 14% was in pursuance of order passed in First Appeal From Order No.662 of 2004 whereas this High Court in Writ Petition No.13223 of 2002 a copy of which is produced by way of additional evidence under Order XXXXI Rule 27 of the Cr.P.C.. The said judgment relies on the Division Bench judgment passed on 10.8.2011 in Writ Petition No.15950 of 2002. The Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari (he was then) was in the said decision granted 8% rate of interest. If we apply it, can the submission of counsel for the respondents is accepted that the decision of Apex Court be relied. The Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari (he was then) was in the said decision granted 8% rate of interest. If we apply it, can the submission of counsel for the respondents is accepted that the decision of Apex Court be relied. The subsequent decision holds the rate of interest as per repo rate would be 8% as the earlier judgment passed in Writ Petition No.15950 of 2002, on similar facts has attained finality as nothing has been brought to our notice as to in the said matters where the respondents are involved and the interest at the rate of 18% on delayed payment and 21% panal interest has been quashed and the interest is fixed at 8%. This Court as in the year 2016 again decided that the correct rate of interest would be 8% as decided in Writ Petition No. 15950 of 2002 but in our case we would be obliged to follow the same, we were taking a liberal view and hold that the appellants would be liable to pay 14% rate of interest, on the unpaid amount ( which has been objected by the learned counsel for respondents), till the amount is paid on the basis that the appellants had prayed that they may be permitted to pay balance amount at the rate of 14% as per decision of Apex Court not accepting this has obliged us to decide the matter on merits and rely on the Division Bench judgment passed in Writ C No.13223 of 2002 on 12.5.2015 which reads as under : "Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri G.K. Malviya, appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent no.1 & 2 and Sri Shri Kant, appearing for the respondent no.3. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent no.3, whereby a sum of Rs.2,58,87,731/- including 21% interest on delayed payment to the concerned respondent has been claimed. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that the dispute involved herein stands adjudicated by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 10.8.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.15950 of 2002. The said writ petition was dismissed by making following observations:- "16. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that the dispute involved herein stands adjudicated by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 10.8.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.15950 of 2002. The said writ petition was dismissed by making following observations:- "16. Besides this, it is to be noted that since this court has stayed the impugned order dated 27.3.2002 passed by respondent vide interim order dated 23.4.2002, therefore, in event of recovery sought to be made from the petitioner as intended by the impugned order dated 27.3.2002 or otherwise on the basis of fresh decision in pursuance of our this order, in that situation, we are of the further opinion that on the amount sought to be recovered only 8% simple interest per annum shall be charged from the petitioner during the period of pendency of instant writ petition and/or till the fresh decision is taken as directed by this court, such interest, in our opinion would meet the ends of justice and also balance the equity between the parties." In view of the above, this writ petition also stands disposed of in the same terms. In the end, it was submitted by Sri Shri Kant, learned counsel for respondent no.3, that against the aforesaid judgment, a special leave petition was preferred, wherein interest payable was made 14% instead of 8%, vide judgment dated 13.3.2012, a copy of which has been placed before us, where from we find that Apex Court has held that this order shall not be treated as precedent in another identical matter. Moreover, perusal of the judgment dated 13.3.2012 goes to show that this is on the consent of the parties before the Apex Court and since parties have not consented before us, for disposal of matter upon similar terms, we are not inclined to pass said order." 15. The earlier judgment will enure for the benefit of the appellant herein and we direct that 8% rate of interest would be the interest. We direct the same to be paid within 12 weeks from today. The appeal is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to first calculate the amount already paid by the appellants herein towards the principal amount and then calculate interest at the rate of 14% and assign the statement to the appellants herein within four weeks from today. We direct the same to be paid within 12 weeks from today. The appeal is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to first calculate the amount already paid by the appellants herein towards the principal amount and then calculate interest at the rate of 14% and assign the statement to the appellants herein within four weeks from today. The appellants will have eight weeks thereafter to deposit the amount, failing which the respondents would be at liberty to take legal proceedings as permitted under law as it is seen that the appellants have misused the liberty given time and again. 16. We really obliged that the respondents did not accept our proposal to settle the matter and accept 14% rate of interest. While going through the record, we are covered by the later judgment passed on 10.8.2021 in Writ Petition No.15950 of 2002 which hold the fact that the plaintiff has requested that they may be permitted to pay 14% rate of interest is on the decision of Apex Court which according to the respondent is not applicable. The dismissal of the suit is absolutely without any basis. There was no contract for 18% rate of interest. The Committee has also not given any reasons why they are charging this high rate of interest for this commercial transaction. The suit could not have been dismissed as the demand itself is without any reasons against the mandate of law of Damdupat and even against the principles of Indian Contract Act. 17. We, therefore, are obliged to allow the appeal and hold that the rate of interest would be 8% as per the judgment granted in Writ C No.13223 of 2002 dated 12.5.2015. 18. We set aside the order of the Court below and decree the suit holding that the demand is bad in eye of law. The appellant-plaintiffs would be obliged pay the remaining amount with 8% rate of interest. Record and proceeding be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. Fresh modified decree be passed. 19. We are thankful to learned counsel for the parties for assisting the Court very ably whereas we are pained to mention that the respondent in one matter pressed into service the order of the Apex Court directing 14% whereas in this matter they contended that it was in peculiar facts of the case there are two matters where the precedent was granting 8% interest.