' This is a review petition filed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act of 1957 against the orders dated 26-9.1968 and 19-4-1969 passed in R. O. R. No, 177/1965.66 and Review No, 17/19f 8-69 respectively by the Member (Judicial and Land Reforms), Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby the Collector's order dated 2-2-1966 regarding partition of the Joint Khata of the patties was restored.
2. I heard the parties and examined the record on 29-1-1977. The decision was reserved to be announced on 31-1-1977.
3. The record shows that this review petition is time-barred by six years, 10 months and 23 days as it was instituted on 12-6-1976 against the impugned order dated 19-4.1969 of the Member (Judicial and Land Reforms), passed in Review Petition No, 17/1968-69 whereby the review petition filed by Bahawal and 38 others, was dismissed upholding the previous order dated 26-9-1968 of the Member (Judicial and Land Reforms) passed in R. O. R. No, 177 of 196566 filed by Bahawal and 18 others. This Review Petition No, 177/1965-66 was against the order dated 15-6-1965 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.),. Rawalpindi whereby on the appeal of petitioners Nos. 1 to 9 who are petitioners in the present review petition also, the partitioning of the joint Khata ordered by the Collector (Cons.) on 2-2-1965 was set aside and the Khata of the parties was kept joint as was done by the A.C.O. While confirming the scheme on 28-9-1964.
4. The Khata was partitioned by the Collector (Cons.) on 2-2-1955 on the appeal of petitioners Nos. /0 to 19 in R.O. R. No, P7/1965-66 (now respondents), namely Fazal Hussain, Ghularn Hussain, Allah Bakhsh, Rehmat, Ali Ahmad, Rafiq, Ohulam Hussain,Allah Bakhsh,Rehmat, Barkat Ali and Nazar, On the appeal of the petitioners 1 to 9, the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Rawalpindi vide his order dated 15-6-1965. Set aside the Collector's order dated 7-2-1965 and restored A. C.O.'s order of confirmation dated 28-9-1964 whereby the Khata was kept joint.
5. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 29-6-68 (impugned order passed in R.O.R. No, 177/1905-66 filed by all the 19 petitioners again restored the Collector's order dated 2-2-1965 whereby the Khata was ordered to he partitioned. The same petitioners i. e. l to 19 filed a Review Petition No, 17/ 1968-69 which was rejected on 19-4-1969 (impugned order).
' It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they never filed Revision Petition No, 177/65-66 in the Board of Revenue nor did they seek review of the Board's order dated 26-9-1968 passed in the above revision petition. It is alleged by them that respondents Fazal Hussain etc. Obtained this order from the Board of Revenue by playing fraud on the Court. On behalf of the respondents it is contended by their counsel that the petition is time-barred by more than 6 years and is, therefore, not maintainable. It is also urged on their behalf that the petitioners' remedy against fraud lies with the civil Court.
7. I have examined the judicial file of the Revision Petition No, 177/65.66 and the Review No, 17 of 1968-69. The file in the Revision petition shows that the present petitioners had no signed the Revision Petition No, 177/65-66. Nor did the power of attorney submitted by Ch. Bashir Ahmed, Advocate bear the signatures or thumb-impressions of the present petitioners. The same is true of the Review Petition No, 17 of 1968-69 which was filed by one Sana Ullah son of Rehmat Khan, The power of attorney submitted by Ch. Bashir Ahmed in the said review petition is also not signed by any of the present petitioners. Sana Ullah was not a party in the cases referred to above. Thus the respondents obtained an order in their favour from the Board of Revenue for the partitioning of the joint Khata by keeping the present petitioners in the dark. They had no knowledge of the order passed by the Board of Revenue in R.
0. R. No, 177/65.66 and in the Review No, 17/ 1968-69. They came to know of these orders when the opposite-party tried to take possession of the land in dispute in May, 1976 and they filed the review petition on 12-6-1976. I would, therefore, treat the petition as within the period of limitation. Since the orders dated 26-9.1968 and 19-4-1969 were passed by the Member (Judicial and Land Reforms) without the knowledge of the present petitioners and without their being consenting parties in the revision/review petitions they cannot be treated as operative against the present petitioners. I therefore, accept the review petition to the extent that the petitioners' Khata will remain joint. Board of Revenue's order dated 26-9-1968 will be deemed to have been amended accordingly.