RSA No. 268 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 268 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 03, 2009 Gunni and another ...... Appellants Versus Pala and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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 preferred against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants challenging a decree dated 17.12.1993 suffered by their grand father Sh.Mana in favour of his collaterals on the ground of it being vitiated by fraud . The following substantial questions of law have been proposed:- i) Whether the Civil Court decree passed within 4-5 days of the filing of the suit is itself a suspicious act coupled with non-presence of J.D.,Will of a later date and the fact that the J.D.in his Will has also mentioned that the decree is not passed RSA No. 268 of 2008(O&M) 2 lawlfully? ii) Whether the decree can be got set aside on the basis of fraud and abuse of the process by the appellants/plaintiffs? iii)Whether the decree was compulsorily required to be registered and non-registration would make is void? iv) Whether the ingredients of fraud have been pleaded and there was sufficient material before the Court to set aside the decree particularly when even the counsel did not know the J.D. and there is no Vakalatnama or the statement of the J.D.? v) Whether the learned courts below have failed to read the evidence brought on record and, therefore, the findings on issues are bad and are required to be set aside? vi) Whether the appellate court is duty bound to discuss the complete evidence and return the issuewise findings? QuestionsNo.1, 2 , 5 and 6 are pure questions of fact and learned counsel has not been able to convince me that the findings recorded on these issues were vitiated either on the ground that there was no evidence in support thereof or that the same have been returned as a result of a completely perverted reading of the evidence. It may be mentioned that both the courts below have considered the fact that the aforesaid Mana had challenged the decree in his life time but the said suit had been dismissed in default. As regards question No. (ii) the lower Appellate Court has rightly placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Smt. Rajo v. Jawahar Singh reported as 2007(1) HRR 393 to negative the claim of the appellants. As regards question No. (iv), suffice it to say that even if ingredients of fraud were pleaded yet the fact that a similar suit filed by Sh.Mana during his life RSA No. 268 of 2008(O&M) 3 time was dismissed in default, no fault can be found with the judgments of the Courts below in declining to entertain the claim of the appellants. Consequently this appeal is dismissed, however,with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 03 , 2009 sunita