IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 406 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 12, 2009 Balbir Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Smt. Biro and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Balbir Singh-appellant had filed a suit titled “Balbir Singh Vs. Sama Kaur and others” in the year 1985. His mother Sama Kaur and sisters Biro and Chandro Devi were arraigned as defendants. All the defendants, while filing their written statement, admitted the claim of Balbir Singh in toto, and, consequently, the suit was decreed on September 21, 1985. On 31.3.2000, Biro and Chandro Devi filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for setting aside the judgment and decree dated September 21, 1985 as it was based upon fraud and misrepresentation of facts. Balbir Singh, sole beneficiary of the decree dated September 21, 1985 filed his reply through a counsel and admitted the claim of his sisters. His mother Smt.Sama Kaur chose not to appear and was R.S.A. No. 406 of 2009 -2- proceeded against ex parte. Statement of Balbir Singh was also recorded in which he stated that he had no objection to the setting aside of decree dated September 21, 1985. Accordingly, vide order dated September 2, 2000, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, allowed the application and set aside the judgment and decree dated September 21, 1985. Claiming that his sisters Biro and Chandro Devi had obtained his signatures on blank papers and got the judgment and decree dated September 21, 1985 set aside by bringing an application under Section 151 of the Code, Balbir Singh alongwith his mother Smt.Sama Kaur, filed an appeal on 23.4.2007 against the judgment and decree dated September 2, 2000, which was dismissed with costs by learned District Judge, Sonepat on December 9, 2008. Both Balbir Singh and Smt. Sama Kaur are now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decree of a civil Court could not have been set aside by filing of an application under Section 151 of the Code by the respondents. Such a decree could have been challenged by the aggrieved person by bringing a regular suit. The inherent powers of the Court could be exercised only if there was no specific provision of law available under the Code. Moreover, such an application was filed after a lapse of 15 years, and, thus, not maintainable. The consent of Balbir Singh was obtained by fraud and after keeping him in the dark. There was no occasion for him to admit the claim of his sisters that the judgment and decree R.S.A. No. 406 of 2009 -3- dated September 21, 1985 was outcome of misrepresentation and fraud. Balbir Singh appellant has not denied his signatures on the reply said to have been submitted on his behalf to the application of his sisters Biro and Chandro Devi under Section 151 of the Code. He also appeared before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat and made a statement that he had no objection if the judgment and decree dated September 21, 1985 was set aside. Under these circumstances, he cannot be now heard saying that his consent was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or he had no occasion to admit the claim of his sisters. The judgment and decree dated September 21, 1985 was on the basis of compromise. Such a judgment and decree was not appealable. The only remedy available to a party, who was aggrieved against the consent decree was of approaching the Court, which had recorded the compromise and decreed the suit in terms of it and make out that there was no compromise. Even no independent suit could be filed for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful. The judgment and decree passed on September 21, 1985 was set aside by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat on September 2, 2000. First appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed on 23.4.2007. There was no explanation given by the appellants as to why they could not file the appeal within time. Therefore, learned lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the first appeal was hopelessly time barred. R.S.A. No. 406 of 2009 -4- The findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither perverse nor they suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They cannot be upset in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code. No question of law, much less any of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellants, arises for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 12, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1