R.S.A No. 4246 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.12728-C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 4246 of 2008 Date of decision : December 24, 2008 Makhan Singh and another ...... Appellants. through Ms.Savita Saxena, Advocate v. Ram Asra and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 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) C.M No.12728-C of 2008 For the reasons stated therein, C.M is allowed and delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.4246 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 with regard to the property left behind by the parties' father in village Sohali. Counsel for the appellants has stated that in an earlier suit the father of the parties had made a statement that the entire property belongs to the appellants but in the decree some-how the property at Sohali was not mentioned. It is, thus, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants R.S.A No. 4246 of 2008 ::2:: that the Court could not have decreed the suit regarding village Sohali in view of the clear intendment of the father of the parties. In my opinion, it would not be open for the Court to go behind the earlier decree. Admittedly, the earlier decree did not mention the property of village Sohali. The second argument of counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had admitted that he had come to know about the earlier decree in the year 1990 itself, yet he filed the suit after more than 12 years. The Courts below have rightly rejected his suit qua that part of the property which was mentioned in that decree. With regard to the property at village Sohali, since the same was not mentioned in that decree, the suit on the basis of title cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 24, 2008. JUDGE `kk'