R.S.A No. 2957 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2957 of 2007 Date of decision : July 09, 2009 Asha Rani and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Smt. Ramesh Rani and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. *** 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.8.1984 whereby respondent No.4 was held entitled to the possession of the property in dispute on account of the fact that he had become owner thereof since the mortgagor had not redeemed the property mortgaged in his favour. Counsel for the appellants has proposed the following substantial questions of law :- “ 1) Whether fraud and misrepresentation does not vitiate everything ? R.S.A No. 2957 of 2007 ::2:: 2) Whether fraud and misrepresentation played by a plaintiff upon the court will not render the judgment and the decree passed in his suit a complete nullity and therefore it has to be ignored altogether for all purposes? 3. Whether in a subsequent suit when the judgment and decree passed in earlier civil suit is being challenged on the ground of the same being an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation played by plaintiff in that earlier suit, upon the court, the said subsequent suit can be said to be barred by the principles of resjudicata ? 4. Whether it is not mandatory for the civil court to go into the depths of the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation leveled in the subsequent suit against the plaintiff in the previous suit and thereupon pass a detailed judgment on the said issue ?” Counsel for the appellants has argued that in fact even as per the allegation of respondent No.4, the property of Mahant Jadu Nath had been mortgaged by Mahant Baij Nath and Lachhmi Devi. As per the learned counsel these two persons could not in law have mortgaged the property not belonging to them and, thus, the previous suit was decreed as a result of fraud and misrepresentation. As a matter of fact all the questions proposed have as their central leitmotif the allegation that the previous decree is void on account of fraud and misrepresentation. In my opinion, this argument will not avail the appellants for the simple reason that they were represented through predecessor in title in the said previous suit and all these pleas were R.S.A No. 2957 of 2007 ::3:: available to them. Both the Courts below have in fact found that the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation have also not been made out. Thus, both on the question of applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC as well as on the questions of fact regarding establishment of a case of fraud and misrepresentation I hold all the questions proposed against the appellants. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 09, 2009. JUDGE `kk'