' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 16-12-1971 passed by Director, Guddu Barrage whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners in respect of pieces (i) A/12-0 Acres and (iii)
C/12-16 Acres from B. Rs, 245 of Deh Lakhi Taluka Sukkur granted to respondents on Harap tenure from Kharif 1969-70 as time-barred
2. The facts of the case are already given in the impugned order and need not be reproduced.
3. The Advocate for the petitioners contends :
(i) That the petitioners are bona fide Hans of the land under dispute and have got their houses, Alam and Nalka on the said lands.
(ii) That fraud has been played by the respondents as would appear from the Rubkari issued by the Assistant C.O., Guddu Barrage on 7.1-1972 wherein it has been shown that the initial deposit has been paid by the sons of Mr. Agha Abdul Karim.
(iii) That the respondents are neither Haris of the same land nor they reside there.
(iv) That the respondents Khaliqdino and Shahan have been granted S. Rs, 402 of Deh Khainyari Taluka Garhi Yasin and S. Rs, 119 of deh Amrot of the same Taluka on Harap and small Khatedar conditions, respectively. Therefore, they cannot be considered for grant of land in Deh Lakhi Taluka Sukkur.
(v) Section 18 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the present case as the fraud has been played in the matter and the time for filing of revision/appeal will run against the petitioners from the date of knowledge and not from the date of passing of the order. Section 18 of the Limitation Act provides that where any person having a right to institute a suit or making an application has by means of fraud been kept from the knowledge of such right or of the title on which it is founded or where any document necessary to establish such right has been fraudulently concealed from him, the time limited for instituting a suit or making an application.
(a) against the person guilty of the fraud or accessory thereto or
(b) against any person claiming through him otherwise than in good faith and for a valuable consideration, shall be computed from the time when the fraud first became known to the person injuriously affected thereby or in the case of the concealed document, when he first had the means of producing it or compelling its production, ' He further contends that Agha Abdul Karim the then Deputy Colonization Officer, was interested in the grant and he has been instituting criminal cases against the petitioners. He produced certified copies of F. I. R. And statements of the witnesses.
4. The Advocate for the petitioners, on the other hand, contends :
(i) that the record has been forged by Muhammad Bux Tapedar.
(ii) That Muhammad Bux and one Gada Hussain filed appeal against the very persons which was dismissed in default. Thereafter the present petitioners, were set up by Muhammad Bux who filed appeal before the learned Project Director after a delay of 2 years. Therefore, it is clear that Muhammad Bux is interested in the land and not the petitioners who have got up from the slumber after a long time with the result that their appeal was also rejected being hopelessly time-barred.
(iii) That the respondents were called by the Barrage authorities who secured receipts from them and entered the name of Iqbal and Altaf against the entry where Deh is mentioned in order to involve Mr. Agha Abdul Karim and to prejudice this honourable Court. The columns which indicate the name from whom received show the names of the respondents. It is, therefore, afterthought that the Barrage authorities in collusion with Muhammad Bux, dismissed Tapedar, has manipulated and shown the name of Iqbal and Altaf.
(iv) That the respondents are in cultivating possession of the land.
(v) The perusal of receipt book would show that interpolations and additions in it have been made.
There are 4 columns in the receipt prepared under village manual for receipt of the amount on behalf of Government by the recovering agencies. The columns are shows as under :-
(a) Name of Deh.
(b) From whom received.
(c) Amount.
(d) On whose behalf.
' Its perusal would show that name of Altaf Ahmed has been shown in the column of Deh who paid the amount on behalf of Khaliq Dino. This interpolation appears to have been made with mala fide intention to put the respondents to loss.
(vi) Section 18 provides the word 'fraud' which means active deceit in d4auding or endeavouring to defraud a person of his right by artful device. Fraud mentioned in this section must be committed by the party against whom right is sought to enforce. If the fraud has been committed by a third person this section would not apply. This section also provides that there is no reference in the section to a light to institute an appeal. In case where an appellant has been kept out of the knowledge of his right to appeal by the fraud of the opposite party he may not be able to rely on this section 18 of Limitation Act but he may seek the indulgence of the Court under section 5 of the Act for excusing the delay. In the present case section 18 as argued above is not applicable but section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable and the petitioners have to explain a reasonable cause for condonation of delay. No fraud has been practised against the petitioners and they warmest kept in the dark for not filing appeals in time.
5. I have given due consideration to the arguments put forth by the counsels of the parties and have also gone through the relevant record produced by the Barrage Authorities.
' I have also benefit of report, dated 25-4-1972 and 17-10-1974 of the C.
0., Guddu Barrage, Sukkur. From the perusal of impugned order it appears that the learned Director, Guddu Barrage, rejected the appeal of the petitioners being hopelessly time-barred and the counsel of the petitioners was not able to give justification for filing appeal after the expiry of limitation. The counsel of the petitioners has not been able to rebut the impugned order but has claimed that a fraud was committed on the petitioner as such they filed appeal very late. The counsel of petitioners has therefore, relied on section 18 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. On the other hand the counsel of the petitioners has argued that, n section 18 the word 'fraud' means active deceit in defrauding or endeavouring to deprive a person of his right by artful device. The fraud mentioned in section 18 must have been committed by the party against whom a right is sought to be enforced. A Accordingly the petitioners cannot claim the protection of section 18 of the Limitation Act but they are governed by section 5 of the said Act.
6. In view of the above legal position I am fully convinced' that the petitioners have no case and the learned Director, Guddu Barrage, was justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioners as time- barred. Consequently I find no reason to interfere with the said order. The revision petition merits no consideration and is rejected.
Revision rejected.