RSA No.3240 of 2009 (O&M) ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3240 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 has filed the suit for declaration to challenge the decree dated 21.09.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.684 of 1992 titled `Santosh Vs. Hukmi’ being null and void on account of fraud and misrepresentation. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit in the present form as she had earlier filed Civil Suit No.577 of 1994 on 19.07.1994 to challenge the impugned decree and had got it dismissed as withdrawn by making a statement on 04.08.1994 (Ex.DY) on which order dated 04.08.1994 (ExD1) was passed by the Court and as such it was barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for short “CPC”] as no permission was sought by the plaintiff from the Court for the purpose of instituting fresh suit on the same cause of action. It was also dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove the particulars of fraud or misrepresentation as provided under Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC and her signatures on the impugned decree has been proved by her Advocate R.D.Kaushik who had appeared as DW4 and also by the Handwriting and Fingerprint expert Yash Pal Chand Jain who had appeared as DW6. Although, learned counsel for the appellant has re-argued the case on facts but he has miserably failed to point out any error of - 1- RSA No.3240 of 2009 (O&M) ****** law in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below to compel this Court to take a view different from the view taken by them, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal nor do I find involvement of any substantial question of law as the same has not been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. October 14, 2010. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) vinod* JUDGE - 2-