O R D E R

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 13/05/2024 passed by Additional Collector, Singrauli in Revision No.62/Revision/2022-23, by which Revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed as barred by time.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that partition took place on 31/03/2017. Since petitioner was not aware of the said partition, therefore being aggrieved by said order, petitioner preferred an Appeal some times in the year 2022 before SDO Deosar, District Singrauli, which was registered as case No.53/Appeal/2022-23. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay. However, by order dated 07/06/2022, application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act was rejected and as a consequence thereof, Appeal was also dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved by said order, petitioner preferred a Revision before Additional Collector Singrauli which was registered as Revision No.62/Revision/2022-23 and by the impugned order dated 13/05/2024, the said Revision has been dismissed on the ground that partition proceedings bear the signature of petitioner and her contention that she was not aware of the partition proceedings is not correct.

4. Challenging the orders passed by SDO Deosar, District Singrauli as well as Additional Collector, Singrauli, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that it is well established principle of law that the Court should deal with the application for condonation of delay in liberal manner and therefore, both the Revenue Courts committed a material illegality by rejecting the application for condonation of delay by adopting a very strict view.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

6. The SDO Deosar, District Singrauli while deciding the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act has given a specific finding that “it is clear from the order-sheets of the original case that petitioner had appeared on various occasions and put her thumb impression. Similarly on 13/04/2016 she had also given an affidavit thereby giving her consent for unequal partition”. Neither petitioner has challenged the said finding in the Writ Petition nor it was argued. Even petitioner has not filed the copy of order-sheets of partition proceedings which according to the SDO also contained the thumb impression of the petitioner. Mere claim of the petitioner that she came to know about the partition proceedings on 16/08/2021, in absence of further contention that in spite of reasonable diligence, she could not discover the said fact, contention of petitioner with regard to date of knowledge cannot be accepted.

7. Section 17 of Limitation Act reads as under:- “17. Effect of fraud or mistake. (1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,—

(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:

Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which—

(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase kn