Judgment ( 1. ) TWO Courts have dismissed plaintiffs suit giving rise to filing of this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC by the plaintiff contending that the appeal involves substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid. The impugned judgment and decree is dated 13-5-2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shujalpur in C. A. No. 15-A of 2001, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 2-A of 2000, decided by Civil Judge, Class I, Shujalpur, District Shajapur, on 16-10-2001. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 100 ibid 1 ( 2. ) HEARD Shri A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. ( 3. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the appeal. In other words, the appeal docs not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 100 of CPC and hence, the appeal must merit dismissal in limine. ( 4. ) IT was a suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) for seeking a declaration that an ex parte decree, dated 13-10-1995 passed in one C. S. No. 69-A of 1994 is not binding on him as the same was obtained by the respondent (plaintiff in C. S. No. 69-A of 1994), in collusion with one lawyer. The suit was dismissed and the dismissal was upheld in appeal, giving rise to filing of second appeal by the plaintiff. It was held and in my opinion, rightly, that plaintiff of this suit who was defendant in C. S. No. 69-A of 1994 had filed appeal to get rid of the said decree, but he lost. It is only then, he filed the suit out of which this appeal arises and sought a declaration to avoid its execution. ( 5. ) I find no triable issue in the suit, nor in this appeal. No suit can be filed to challenge the decree except on the ground of fraud, because fraud vitiates the whole process. In the opinion of Court, neither any case of fraud was pleaded much less proved. ( 5. ) I find no triable issue in the suit, nor in this appeal. No suit can be filed to challenge the decree except on the ground of fraud, because fraud vitiates the whole process. In the opinion of Court, neither any case of fraud was pleaded much less proved. If the complaint was against the lawyer then the same should have been brought to notice of Bar Council. No such complaint was made to Bar Council. In such situation, no suit could be filed to seek a declaration that decree passed by the Competent Court whether ex parte or bi parte, is illegal or invalid. It was a decree capable of being executed and hence, had to be given effect to. ( 6. ) APPEAL thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.