' This judgment will dispose of C.R. No,140-D of 1978.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are, that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the property in issue and that the order of cancellation of auction was unlawful and without jurisdiction. A decree for delivery of possession was also claimed. It was the case of petitioner that Plot No,13/C was purchased by him from respondent in open auction, the entire price was paid through Receipt No,41, the auction was confirmed on 17-2-1972. The petitioner had become owner of the plot and that respondent, illegally cancelled the auction on 27-3-1972 without, proper notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The suit was duly contested. After issues and evidence suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 13-6-1977.
3. Petitioner applied for execution of the decree, notices were issued to the respondent, the functionaries of the respondents obtained many opportunities to obey the decree and after a considerable time filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge Bahawalnagar vide order, dated 14-5-1978. In this revision petition the order of the District Judge is in issue.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal was hopelessly barred by time, there was no good ground for condonation of delay but the learned District Judge illegally condoned the delay without any positive material. It was added that no issue was framed on the point of condonation of delay nor opportunity of evidence allowed and, thus, the delay was condoned on illegal assumptions.
5. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondents, despite notice, hence proceeded against ex parte.
6. Undeniably the appeal filed by the respondents was barred by time. The delay was about four months. Explanation was that the decree was concealed. On the face of it the explanation did not appear to be logical. The suit was duly contested and decreed by ' the trial Court. Execution proceedings were initiated in which the functionaries of the respondents had been making appearance. They have been asking for time to comply with thd decree. After lapse of time the appeal was filed. If the subordinate functionaries had failed -to perform their duties or were negligent, the matter was between the authority and its employees and possibly the right accrued to the petitioner could not have been taken away. Be that as it may, the plea of condonation of delay was seriously contested, the learned District Judge could not condone it, without framing issue or recording evidence. Unless the facts asserted in the application were proved, delay could not possibly be condoned. Learned District Judge, therefore, fell in error for condoning long delay in filing of appeal without proper inquiry and evidence.
7. For the reasons above, this revision is allowed, the impugned judgment of the appellate Court is set aside with the result that the appeal of respondent shall be deemed to be pending before the District Judge who will make inquiry and record evidence after framing issue on the question of sufficiency or otherwise of ground for condonation of delay and then. Decide the appeal in accordance with law. After recording evidence, the learned District Judge will determine, as to whether, the delay could be condoned.