The main legal point established in the judgment is that clear allegations of fraud and misrepresentation of facts in an appeal, along with the acknowledgment of fraud detection, can impact the applicability of Section 17(I) of the Limitation Act and influence the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves a challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority vide Annexures-8 & 9 herein.

2. Factual background as narrated and disclosed in the course of hearing appears to be, this is 3rd round of litigation by the Petitioners. Petitioners claiming to be the children of Smt. Basanta Kumari Devi the original lessee, are enjoying a lease of Ac.1.23 decimals of land under Khata No.79, Plot Nos.45, 47 & 48 in village Jamuhata in Keonjhar district being granted by the Tahasildar, Keonjhar on 19.11.1986 involving Encroachment Case No.1 of 1985-86 purely for agricultural purpose. Order passed in the Encroachment Case No.1 of 1985-86 is enclosed as Annexure-1. It is claimed that on the basis of the above order as well as the report of the Revenue Supervisor dated 16.08.1986 settlement was made in favour of the Petitioners. It is claimed that settlement was made after issuing of proclamation and invitation of objections. In a further development Rayati Patta was issued in favour of the mother of the Petitioners. Petitioners have enclosed the report of the Revenue Supervisor as well as Rayati Patta as Annexures-2 & 3 respectively. Petitioners have also enclosed the rent receipt in proof of collection of rent in respect of the disputed property. It is alleged that after lapse of 14 years an appeal vide Lease Appeal No.1 of 2000 was filed before the Court of the Sub-Collector, Keonjhar challenging the order of the Tahasildar, Keonjhar dated 19.11.1986 vide Annexure-1, also intending to cancel the lease involved. Accordingly notices were issued fixing the date of hearing in the matter of condonation of delay and admission of the matter to 12.10.2000. Petitioners themselves have enclosed the memorandum of appeal and the delay condonation application as Annexures-5 & 5/A respectively, which, however, clearly disclosing appeal to have been preferred in 1997. Further verification in the delay condonation application was made on ........ day of August, 1997. In paragraph 5 it is alleged that without service of notice on the lessee the delay was condoned and the appeal was also admitted thereby. Further without sufficiency of notice, the appeal was also allowed by the order dated 27.04.2001. For the attempt of the State authorities to evict the Petitioners on the basis of the appeal order, the lessee was constrained to move T.S. No.79 of 2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Keonjhar for declaring the order dated 27.04.2001 null and void. The suit was decreed by the judgment dated 9.05.2003 thereby declaring the order in Lease Appeal No.1 of 2000 as null & void and further directing for reopening of the Lease Appeal No.1 of 2000 for fresh hearing, but after providing opportunity of hearing to the lessee. Petitioners have filed copy of the judgment in T.S. No.79 of 2001 at Annexure-7. It is here claimed that after disposal of the suit finding the lessee died in the meantime i.e. on 5.06.2003 a prayer for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased lessee was made and notices were accordingly issued to the legal heirs to appear in the proceeding on 14.12.2004 for hearing on the question of substitution. It is alleged that substitution was allowed without even any application for setting aside of abatement and condonation of delay. Petitioners being the legal heirs on their appearance in the proceeding on 29.11.2007 through their Advocate requested for supply of a copy of the appeal memorandum. Copy of which was also supplied to the legal heirs as appearing at Annexures-5 & 5/A to the writ petition. Appeal again involved an ex parte order of eviction on 11.08.2008. Based on a notice being issued by the Tahasildar to the Petitioners to vacate the lease hold property by 10.09.2009, Petitioners were even unable to move an application for stay before the revisional authority, for the Additional District Magistrate, Keonjhar-Opposite Party No.2 rem