REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 400 of 2008 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 400 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 06, 2008 Smt. Chawli .. Appellant v. Suraj Bhan and others .. Respondents CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Shri Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. PRITAM PAL, J . This Regular Second Appeal by Smt. Chawali, (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), is directed against judgment and decree dated 12.9.2003 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, whereby a suit for declaring judgment and decree dated 3.6.1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the decree”) passed in an earlier suit bearing No. 382 dated 29.5.1989 titled Suraj Bhan and others v. Smt. Chawli, as null and void and not binding upon her, was dismissed. Thereafter, the first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.2007. This is how feeling aggrieved, the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 400 of 2008 2 .. appellant has come up in this Regular Second Appeal. The only noticeable point of argument raised on behalf of the appellant in this Regular Second Appeal is that in fact, the defendant- respondents were sons of uncle of the appellant and she had approached them (respondents) for getting her share partitioned in the suit-land. It is further the case of the appellant that during that process, her thumb impressions were obtained on some blank papers, which were ultimately got converted into the aforesaid decree by playing fraud upon her (appellant). Both the courts below have given concurrent findings that the appellant, in the year 1989, had appeared before the trial Court, after engaging her counsel and thereafter she had also made statement voluntarily admitting the claim of the respondents and thereafter, the aforesaid decree dated 3.6.1989 was passed in accordance with law. There is also concurrent findings of both the courts below that the plea of playing fraud upon the appellant is not at all proved. Besides that, it is also established that the appellant was not in possession over the suit land even after passing of the decree challenged by her. Had there been any genuine cause for her to challenge the said decree, then she would not have kept mum for ten years after passing of the same. Since, in the present case, no fraud is proved to have been played upon the appellant by the respondents, as alleged in the suit, therefore, the decree dated 3.6.1989 in the facts of this case, cannot be held invalid merely on the ground of its non- registration. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal for REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 400 of 2008 3 .. consideration by this Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. Since the main appeal has been dismissed in limine, no order is required to be passed on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. [ PRITAM PAL ] February 06, 2008 JUDGE som REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 400 of 2008 4 .. CM No. 1178-C of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 400 of 2008 (O&M) Present Shri Anuraj Jain, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. For the reasons mentioned in this application, delay of 8 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. [ PRITAM PAL ] February 06, 2008 JUDGE som