Horce Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows. The judgment-debtor is the appellant and a decree in O.S. No. 22 of 1924, which was a suit upon a promissory note, was passed against him. His property was brought to sale in execution of the decree and was purchased by the 3rd respondent in the sale held on 11th July, 1927. It is alleged that this purchase by the 3rd respondent was benami for respondents 1 and 2, the decree-holders. On the 13th August, 1927, the sale was confirmed and then on the 9th July, 1928, the appellant under. Order 21, Rule 90 and Sections 47 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, put in an application to set aside the confirmation of that sale. This application had to be made within 30 days and clearly, but for Section 18 of the Limitation Act, if it is to be applicable to this case, was barred. The appellant alleged that his application was not barred by reason of the fact that he only discovered the fraud within the 30 days of the making of the application and that under Section 18 of the Limitation Act time does not run until the fraud is discovered. Hence the appellant alleged that his application to set a