C.R. No.3161 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3161 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.08.2009 Janeshwar and another .....Petitioners Versus Satbir and others ....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The civil revision is against the order directing the plaintiff to pay appropriate Court fee on or before 13.03.2004 when the plaintiff had sought for cancellation of a decree that was obtained in Suit No.263 of 1983 on 26.05.1983. The suit had been filed nearly 20 years later on 20.09.2003 on the ground that the earlier decree had been obtained by exercise of fraud by not valuing the suit property properly and not paying the appropriate Court fee. The trial Court had observed that if there was a ground for setting aside the decree on the ground of a fraud, the plaintiff himself was required to pay appropriate Court fee on the valuation of property covered under the decree and a fixed Court fee of Rs.25/- was not proper. Even without C.R. No.3161 of 2004 (O&M) -2- reference to said reasoning of the Court, it could be noted that the plaintiff was actually challenging the decree which had been passed 20 years earlier and there was no mention anywhere as to when the plaintiff came to know about it and how he could urge that there had been a practice of fraud. An inadequate Court fee alleged to have been paid when the earlier suit had been instituted in Suit No.263 of 1983 could hardly be said to be an instance of factum of fraud that a plaintiff could complain of for impeaching the same. The suit itself was incompetent and patently barred by limitation. Though the civil revision challenges merely the order for a direction of payment of Court fee, I find the suit itself to be not maintainable and it ought to have been thrown out as not maintainable and clearly barred by limitation. 2. The order of the Court below is confirmed and the civil revision is dismissed. If the suit is still pending, the trial Court shall take up the case on the issue of limitation and take an appropriate decision after giving opportunity to both sides to address the Court on the said issue. 3. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.2500/-. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 10, 2009 Pankaj*