RSA No.3239 of 2009 (O&M) ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3239 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:14.10.2010. Shrimati Kamla and another …Appellants Versus Santosh and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Aftab Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which their suit for declaration has been dismissed. Plaintiffs are the daughters of Hukmi Devi and Narain Dutt and have challenged the decree suffered in favour of defendant No.1 (Santosh) by defendant No.2 (Hukmi Devi). Hukmi Devi is the mother of the plaintiffs, whereas Santosh is their sister. It is alleged that the impugned decree dated 21.09.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.684 of 1992 was an act of fraud as their father Narain Dutt had never appeared before the Court and nor had filed any admitted written statement. In the said suit, both, Hukmi Devi and Narain Dutt were the parties. On notice, defendant No.2 (Hukmi Devi) had appeared and filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs, whereas the suit was contested by defendant No.1. She alleged that defendant No.2 (Hukmi Devi) is now conniving with the plaintiffs because she had earlier challenged the decree passed in Civil Suit No.684 of 1992 titled ‘Santosh Vs. Hukmi’ by way of Civil Suit No.577 of 1994 dated 19.07.1994 and the said suit was withdrawn by her without seeking permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action, therefore, she is permanently debarred from filing the suit again on the same cause of action in terms of Order 23 - 1- RSA No.3239 of 2009 (O&M) ****** Rule 1(4) of the CPC. Secondly, the plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the decree during the life time of Hukmi Devi upon whom the fraud is alleged to have been played by defendant No.1. Thirdly, the suit has been filed after the expiry of 3 years as the limitation is provided under Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which starts from the date of knowledge of the cause of action, which was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs being the sisters of defendant No.1. Fourthly, the plaintiffs have not pleaded the material facts of misrepresentation or fraud as provided under Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC and finally the signatures of Hukmi Devi on the impugned decree has been admitted by her Advocate R.D.Kaushik who had appeared as DW4 and have been compared also by the Handwriting and Fingerprint expert Yash Pal Chand Jain who had appeared as DW6. The learned Courts below agreed to the defence taken by defendant No.1 which she has successfully proved by leading cogent evidence and as such, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and decree was the result of fraud and the limitation to file suit would start from the date of knowledge but he has miserably failed to prove the contents of fraud or misrepresentation because the lawyer of Hukmi Devi had appeared in the witness box and categorically stated that she had filed admitting written statement by putting her signatures and her signatures have been compared and proved through the Handwriting and Fingerprint expert. Insofar as the limitation is concerned, both the plaintiffs are real sisters of defendant No.1 who had the knowledge about the impugned decree but still they chose to challenge it after expiry of about 10 years, whereas the limitation period is 3 years if the decree is not obtained by fraud. The most important aspect of the matter is that Hukmi Devi is still alive who had filed two separate suits to challenge the decrees in Civil Suit No.684 of 1992 and Civil Suit No.685 of 1992 and has remained unsuccessful. In the presence of Hukmi Devi (defendant No.2), the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the impugned decree. - 2- RSA No.3239 of 2009 (O&M) ****** As a matter of fact, no question of law much-less substantial is involved in this appeal to persuade this Court to form an opinion contrary to the one that has been formed by the Courts below while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. October 14, 2010. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) vinod* JUDGE - 3-