RSA No.3238 of 2009 (O&M) ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3238 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:14.10.2010. Hukmi Devi … Appellant Versus Santosh …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal. She filed the suit for declaration to challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.09.01992 passed in Civil Suit No.685 of 1992 titled `Santosh Vs. Hukmi’. Defendant Santosh is daughter of the plaintiff from Narain Dutt. She alleged that the aforesaid decree was obtained by the defendant fraudulently. However, both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that she had earlier filed Civil Suit No.577 of 1994 dated 19.07.1994 without taking permission of the Court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, therefore, fresh suit on the same cause of action was barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for short “CPC”] but that was pertaining to Civil Suit No.684 of 1992 which was also decreed on the same day, i.e. 21.09.1992, whereas it has been challenged by the plaintiff on 11.03.2002 after the expiry of the period of 3 years from the date of knowledge. Secondly, it has been held that the plaintiff has failed to plead the particulars of misrepresentation and fraud as are required under Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC. Moreover, the case of the plaintiff was found to be false because of the statement of R.D.Kaushik, Advocate, who had appeared as DW4 on behalf of the plaintiff in the earlier Civil Suit No.577 of 1994 and had identified her and only thereafter she had given her consent and filed admitted written - 1- RSA No.3238 of 2009 (O&M) ****** statement. Her signatures have been proved by Yash Pal Chand Jain, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert by comparing her admitted thumb impression with those available on the written statement filed in Civil Suit No.684 of 1992. Thus, the Courts below have found that the impugned decree was suffered by the plaintiff Hukmi Devi without any undue influence, coercion or fraud and the present suit was found to be barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant has re-argued the case on the facts without raising any substantial question of law to contradict the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. He could not find fault with the finding recorded by the Courts below about the suit having been time barred and that the impugned decree was suffered by none else then the plaintiff, as per evidence available on record. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal to tinker with the judgment and decree of the Courts below in the absence of any substantial question of law as envisaged in Section 100 of the CPC. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. No costs. October 14, 2010. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) vinod* JUDGE - 2-