The absence of credible evidence to support claims of fraud in a compromise deed leads to dismissal of the appeal.

ALKA SARIN, J.

CM-9128-C-2018

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of more than 64 days in refiling the main appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of more than 64 days in refiling the main appeal is condoned.

CM-9129-C-2018

3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 51 days in refiling the main appeal.

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 51 days in refiling the main appeal is condoned.

RSA-3441-2018

5. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2014 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby his suit for declaration has been dismissed.

6. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the parties were married to each other. On 28.08.1981 a decree of divorce was also passed. Both parties initiated litigations against each other. According to the plaintiff-appellant on 30.03.2005 the defendant-respondent approached him through her counsel Sh.Ashok Kumar and G.S.Ahuja, Advocates in order to end the litigations and live a peaceful life. Resultantly, a compromise was arrived at between the parties as per which the plaintiff-appellant would withdraw his cases, and the defendant-respondent would withdraw one execution application and not pursue another case filed by the plaintiff- appellant. However, soon after the compromise the defendant-respondent had filed an application for restoration of her execution application and subsequently had also got the ex-parte order against her set aside in the suit pertaining to the Kothi in Sector 36, Chandigarh and had thus backed out from the compromise. It was averred that though the defendant-respondent had received 2½ acres of agricultural land as a gift on 15.01.2001, she had sold it to various persons on the basis of a power of attorney of 1999 and it was to cover-up her misdeeds that the compromise was entered into. Thus, the present suit alleging that the compromise deed dated 30.03.2005 was fraudulently obtained by the defendant-respondent. In her written statement the defendant-respondent raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, court fee, cause of action, etc. On merits the stand taken was that it was the plaintiff-appellant who had backed out from the compromise. The plaintiff-appellant had not withdrawn the name of the defendant- respondent from the case which was pending in the Court of Sh.Balwinder Kumar, the then learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Chandigarh and as a result the case was decided ex-parte against the defendant-respondent due to her non-appearance. In the replication the contents of the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of cancellation of compromise dated 30.03.2005 entered into in between the parties on the grounds taken in plaint? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not affixed proper court fee? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not properly verified the suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit? OPD

7. Relief.

8. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.2014 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant. It is urged that the compromise dated 30.03.2005 was entered into fraudulently by the defendan