' This is an appeal against the order, dated 19-9-1967 passed by the kdditiona Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, whereby he had accepted compromise between Abdul Rehman Shah and Usman to the effect that Usman should get 0-8-0 share from S. Nos. 38 and 39 of Deh Khalso, Taluka Badin and upheld the appeal of the respondent in respect of 0-8-0 share in both the S. Nos.
2. Heard the counsels for both the parties. Zafar Ali Shah claimed to be grand-son of Abdul Rehman Shah. The impugned order was passed in the year 1967 whereas the present appeal was filed on 22-11-1973. The counsel for the appellant contended that Abdul Rehman Shah had died in March, 1967 and neither Abdul Rehman Shah was present before the Additional Commissioner on 19-9-1967 when the impugned order was passed nor had any compromise been made by the parties and further that facts had been misrepresented before the Additional Commissioner, to show that a compromise had been effected between the parties and, therefore, the impugned order is not maintainable. He also contended that the appellant had no knowledge about the impugned order earlier and, therefore, he could not prefer an appeal against that order in time.
3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent urged the following points :- (i)Appellant is grand-son of Abdul Rehman Shah. Son of Abdul Rehman Shah and father of the appellant is alive and, therefore, the appellant has no locus standi to agitate the matter; and
(ii) The appeal is time-barred. The appellant bad full knowledge about the impugned order. Even the notice for hearing of the original case before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, was served on the appellant. He was present before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad on 25-8- 1967 as is evident from the diary of the case and was informed to be present again on 19-9-1967 when the impugned order was passed. There is thus no justification for condonation of the delay.
4. I have considered the case. The appeal is time-barred by over 6 years. The file of the appeal before the Additional Commissioner. Hyderabad indicates that appellant had been appearing on behalf of Abdul Rehman Shah before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad which point supports the fact that he had due knowledge about the hearings of the case and passing of the impugned order. There was no reason why he should have kept silent for a period of over 6 years if the compromise was against their wishes and without their consent. In view of this position, I see no reason to condone such an inordinate and inexplicable delay. The appeal thus being hopelessly time-barred is dismissed accordingly.