R.S.A No. 1320 of 2006 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1320 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : October 15, 2009 Siri Bhagwan, ...... Appellant (s) v. Ram Parshad and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sunil Pawar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that the decree dated 25.1.1988 suffered by plaintiff-Roop Chand (since deceased) was illegal, fraudulent, null and void. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.1.1988, based on the plea of the property being benami, could be sustained in view of positive findings R.S.A No. 1320 of 2006 (O&M) ::2:: by the learned Lower Courts that defendant no.1 could not prove the property to be held by the plaintiff as benamidar ? ii) Whether the impugned findings of the learned lower Courts on issues no.1 to 4 being mutually destructive and contradictory in terms, are illegal and liable to be set aside ? iii) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees of learned lower Courts result from patent misreading of evidence and are perverse ? iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.1.1988 required compulsory registration ? v) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.1.1988 and consequential mutation resulted from fraud and misrepresentation and was liable to be set aside? vi) Whether the subsequent judgment and decree dated 2.7.1991 and consequential mutation are also illegal and liable to be set aside, being based on the earlier judgment and decree dated 25.1.1988, which was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation ? vii) Whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to a decree of declaration and possession of the disputed land, being rightful owners thereof ?” However, counsel for the appellant has not addressed arguments on any of the above mentioned questions but has argued the R.S.A No. 1320 of 2006 (O&M) ::3:: proposition of law to the effect that there is distinction between a decree passed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC (compromise), and the one passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC (admission). Extending this argument, it is stated that the decree dated 25.1.1988 was a judgment and decree on admission and, thus, par to challenge the same by way of a separate civil suit-as applicable to a decree under Order 23 Rule 3-would not be applicable. It must be noticed here that the plea of the appellant that the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1988 was obtained by fraud has not been accepted by the Courts below and it has been held concurrently that Roop Chand himself voluntarily suffered a decree dated 25.1.1988. Coming to the argument regarding the alleged distinction between the decree passed under Order 12 rule 6 and the one passed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, once it has been held that the impugned decree dated 25.1.1988 was voluntarily suffered, this hyper-technical distinction would not have any effect. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 15, 2009. JUDGE `kk'