RSA No.857 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.857 of 2008. Decided on: December 07, 2009. Surjit Kaur .. Appellant VERSUS The Rampur Rural Co-operative Bank Ltd., and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.J.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Harjot Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent society for declaration that it is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.15 lacs from 1/8th share of the land mentioned in the heading of the plaint and that judgment and decree dated 01.10.1994, titled Surjit Kaur Vs. Gurdarshan Singh, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge . . . 1 RSA No.857 of 2008 (Sr.Divn.), Fatehgarh Sahib, is null and void, was decreed holding that the decree in favour of the defendant-appellant No.1 obtained by her against her husband was null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-respondent. The appeal filed by the defendant- appellant was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The Courts below have held that defendant-respondent No.2, is a judgment debtor pursuant to an award of the arbitrator passed in the year 1992 and that in order to defeat the rights of the decree holder- plaintiff, he has suffered a decree in favour of his wife. The appellant claims that she had been given a share to the extent of 1/8th share pursuant to her obtaining divorce in lieu of maintenance. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the defendant-appellant has got pre-existing right of maintenance in the suit land as such, the amount of award against her divorced husband cannot be recovered from her despite the declaration granted by the Courts below. In view of the concurrent finding of fact that the decree obtained by the appellant is with an object to defeat the rights of the plaintiff-respondent Cooperative Society, no substantial question of law arises warranting interference. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 07, 2009. rka . . . 2