In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA No.1698 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on January 20,2010. Kamal Aggarwal -- Appellant vs. Amir Chand --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj,Advocate,for the appellant Mr.Ashutosh Hoshiarpuri,Advocate,for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, (Oral) Defendant is in second appeal in a suit for damages filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.20,000/- which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.5.2007. The plaintiff filed first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,'CPC'), which was allowed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar, vide his judgment and decree dated 17.4.2008 awarding Rs.20,000/-as damages along-with interest @ 6% per annum to the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further from the date of decree till realization with the same rate of interest. The defendant has filed the present appeal and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction has been assessed at Rs.20,000/- on which court fee of Rs.860/- has been affixed. RSA 1698 of 2008 - 2- Notice of motion was issued, pursuant to which respondent has put in appearance through his counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the present second appeal is barred under Section 102 of C.P.C which provides that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original appeal is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in any case, this is not a second appeal filed by the defendant as the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial Court. I am afraid the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted as this is a second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery filed for Rs.20,000/- and no matter whether the plaintiff suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Faced with this circumstance, learned counsel has further submitted that this appeal may be treated as a Civil Revision. Again, this request made by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted because no revision could be filed against a decree and if no appeal is maintainable against the judgment and decree being barred under Section 102 of C.P.C, then the revision also cannot be maintained. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. January 20,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge