' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Appeals Nos.102, 754 and 755 of 2000 which have been directed against the same consolidated judgment passed in Civil Revisions Nos.457 and 381 of 1986.
2. The property in dispute was admittedly owned by Muhammad Akbar Khan, respondent No,1. His case as made out in the present suit from which these appeals have arisen was that he gave blank papers and Wakalatnama signed by him to his counsel for institution of some judicial proceedings which were taken back by his step-brother Khurshid Ali Khan who got filed a suit against him on behalf of other step-brother Salahuddin in which the said papers and Wakalatnama were used to obtain collusive and fraudulent consent decree on the consenting statement of Asghar Ali Khan as his attorney which being fraudulent transaction, as such, the same did not adversely affect his ownership rights in the property. A prayer for recovery of possession of land was also made. The case of the appellants in C.A. No,102 of 2000 titled "Zulfiqar Ali etc v. Muhammad Akbar Khan etc." was that they were bona fide purchasers from Mst. Shahar Bano because after passing of the said alleged collusive decree in favour of Salahuddin, he sold the land immediately thereafter to Asghar Ali Khan who made statement as alleged attorney of Muhammad Akbar Khan in the said suit who further gifted the same to Mst. Shahar Bano, his wife from whom the said appellants in C.A. 102 of 2000 purchased for an amount of Rs,1,51,000.
3. The trial Court through judgment dated 20-5-1985 decreed the suit by holding that the consent decree passed in the suit of Salahuddin was collusive and fraudulent therefore, Muhammad Akbar Khan continued to be the owner of the property, as such, further transactions made by Salahuddin in favour of Asghar Ali Khan and by Asghar Ali Khan in favour of Mst. Shahar Bano inclusive of sale made by Mst. Shahar Bano in favour of the appellants in C.A. No 102 of 2000 was also ineffective upon his rights in the land. Two appeals were filed, one by Salahuddin and the other by Asghar Ali Khan before the First Appellate Court. The appeal filed by Salahuddin was dismissed through judgment dated 3-5-1986 by holding that the decree passed in his favour in the said suit was collusive and fraudulent therefore, his appeal was of no merits whereas the appeal filed by Zulfiqar Ali etc., appellants in C.A.No,102 of 2000 was accepted on Issue No,8-A by holding that they were bona fide purchasers, as such, were saved under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. As a consequence of this finding, since fraudulent act of Salahuddin was found to have deprived Muhammad Akbar Khan of his ownership rights on the basis of bona fide sale in favour of the said appellants, therefore, the (Muhammad Akbar Khan) was ordered to be compensated by payment of Rs,600,000 by Salahuddin therefore, decree for recovery of the said amount was passed in favour of Muhammad Akbar Khan. Two revision petitions were filed before the High Court bearing Nos.457 and 381 of 1986 against this judgment which have been disposed of through the impugned judgment dated 23-2-2000 wherein it has been held that the original decree being fraudulent therefore, it did not have the effect of depriving Muhammad Akbar Khan of his ownership rights in the land and that the appellants in C.A.No,102 of 2000 were not bona fide purchasers, therefore, their interest was not saved under any of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act therefore, the suit was decreed in favour of Muhammad Akbar Khan as prayed for and the amount of compensation of Rs,600,000 granted by the First Appellate Court was reduced to Rs,300,000 and a decree for recovery of the same was passed in favour of Muhammad Akbar Khan against Salahuddin against which these appeals are directed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants in C.A.No,102 of 2000 has been heard. When questioned, as to what evidence was produced by the said appellants in order to establish that they were bona fide purchasers, he read out the statement of one of the appellants namely Zulfiqar Ali Khan. In the said statement, Zulfiqar Ali Khan merely stated that before entering into the sale agreement, he satisfied himself by examining the Revenue Record that Mst. Shahar Bano was recorded as owner of the land. A finding of fact has been recorded by the High Court that on the date Zulfiqar Ali Khan claimed to have purchased the property through agreement of sale dated 28-1-1974, Mst. Shahar Bano was not recorded as owner in the Revenue Record, for the mutation of gift in her favour made by her husband was entered on 23-2-1974. Apart from this statement, there is no evidence on behalf of Zulfiqar Ali Khan that he maue any inquiry from the original owner, Muhammad Akbar Khan because he (Muhammad Akbar Khan) was the original owner of the property, for in the circumstances of the case, we feel that a person of ordinary prudence if was a bona fide purchaser at least would have done so.
5. The findings recorded by all the Courts below in favour of Muhammad Akbar Khan that the consent decree was fraudulent, were sufficient to hold that every subsequent transaction based on the same was also of no legal consequence against his ownership rights C.A. Nos.754 and 755 of 2000 filed by Salahuddin and Asghar Ali Khan, respectively, in whose favour consent decree was passed, are barred by 73 days. The explanation given in the application made by them for condonation of delay is that the certified copies of the documents issued by the High Court for filing the appeal were dim and the said delay was caused because better copies were to be prepared to file them before this Court, as this Court usually does not accept dim copies. We are afraid, if this can be held to be a ground much less sufficient ground recognized by law for condonation of delay. Besides, each and every day's delay is to be explained which has not been done in these cases. Resultantly, application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed as a consequence whereof C.As. Nos.754 and 755 of 2000 are also dismissed as barred by time.
6. The bona fide purchase of Zulfiqar Ali Khan, appellant C.A. No,102 of 2000 for the above reasons has also not been established therefore, the findings of the High Court and the trial Court are also perfectly in accordance with law therefore, the said appeal is also dismissed on merits.
7. No order as to cost.