RSA No. 4053 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 4053 of 2009 Date of decision: 03.05.2011 Har Dutt Singh .....Appellant Versus Smt.Risali Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging decree dated 28.3.1990 passed in Civil suit No. 49 of 1990 titled “Swaran Singh vs. Har Dutt”. Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that he was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 kanals 13 marlas being 3/4th share out of total 20 kanals 17 marlas situated in Village Manoharpur. Plaintiff had never appeared in the Court in the suit filed by Swaran Singh nor had filed his written statement. Plaintiff had not suffered any statement in favour of Swaran Singh. In the said suit, the impugned decree was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the RSA No. 4053 of 2009 (O&M) 2 decree in question had been validly passed. Plaintiff had appeared before the Court and had made a statement admitting the claim of Swaran Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the decree and judgment dated 28.3.90 passed in civil suit No.49/90 titled Swaran Singh versus Har Dutt are illegal, null and void and are result of impersonation and liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint.?OPP 2.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit?OPD 5.Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. By way of the present suit, plaintiff has challenged the decree dated 28.3.1990 passed in Civil suit No. 49 of 1990 filed against him by Swaran Singh. Plaintiff could have challenged the said decree on the ground of fraud or impersonation. RSA No. 4053 of 2009 (O&M) 3 The case of the plaintiff was that he had never contested the said suit filed by Swaran Singh. In fact, somebody else appeared in place of the plaintiff and the decree had been passed in favour of Swaran Singh. In order to substantiate his plea, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and deposed that he had come to know about the decree on 9.10.2001 when he had gone to the Halqa Patwari to get the certified copies of the revenue record. Plaintiff also examined PW3- Ram Dhan Babbar, handwriting and finger print expert to substantiate his plea that the plaintiff had not signed the pleadings or the statements in the earlier suit. However, the said witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that during his service at Madhuban, he had never examined/compared signatures. Defendants, on the other hand, examined an expert as DW3, handwriting and finger print expert, who gave his opinion that the plaintiff had signed the pleadings and statement in the Court in the earlier proceedings. Thus, the expert examined by both the parties had given opinion in favour of the plaintiff who had examined them. In these circumstances, it would be necessary to examine the other evidence on record qua the pleas raised by the parties. DW4 Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate deposed that he had been engaged by plaintiff Har Dutt to appear on his behalf in suit titled “Swaran Singh vs. Har Dutt ' on 27.3.1990 bearing no. 49 of 1990. He had filed the written statement as instructed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had affixed his signatures after admitting the contents of the written statement as correct. Thereafter, the plaintiff appeared in the Court and made a statement and had signed the same after RSA No. 4053 of 2009 (O&M) 4 admitting it to be correct. He had identified the plaintiff. He knew the plaintiff Har Dutt as he had appeared in many cases on his behalf. Thus, the counsel, who had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, in the earlier, suit has deposed to the effect that the plaintiff had appeared in the Court and had suffered a statement in favour of Swaran Singh. Counsel also deposed that the plaintiff had engaged him as counsel and he had filed written statement as directed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, both the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the impugned decree was a result of fraud and impersonation. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 03, 2011 arya