JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - This revision arises out of an application u/s 228(2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act read with Section 18 of the Limitation Act, filed by the present Petitioner, who was judgment-debtor No. 2 in Execution Case No. 2852 of 1944-45 on the file of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Cuttack. 2. The Petitioner's case is that about half an acre of dhuli bhag land was put to sale and purchased by the decree-holder-opposite party for Rs. 23/- on 15-2-45. He pleads that he was not in arrear of rent at all and that he was not aware of the decree obtained by the opposite party and that the fact of Court sale was deliberately withheld from his knowledge. He also adduced evidence showing that he filed a sun for commutation of rent, In 1949, and that in the course of that proceeding the decree-holder disclosed that he had already purchased the land. Another fact emerging from the evidence is that the Petitioner sent a sum of money in the year 1948, towards payment of rent, and that this amount was received by the decree-holder's son. The Petitioner says that he has no other land in respect of which he sent this amount. The Petitioner came to know of the fraud practised on him by the opposite party, on 17-4-50 and filed his application to set aside the sale on 8-6-50. He alleged that he had not received any notice under Rule 22 of Order 21 CPC and that the processes had been fraudulently suppressed. His further allegation was that the suit holding is worth about Rs. 800/- and that it was purchased for a very low price. 3. The Rent Suit Deputy Collector who tried the case in the first instance allowed the prayer of the Petitioner and set aside the sale. On appeal however, the lower appellate Court set aside that order primarily on the ground that the application had been barred by limitation. He also held that the alleged fraud had not been established. 4. On the question of limitation, I am satisfied, after hearing learned Counsel for the petition that the view taken by the lower appellate court is erroneous. He also held that the alleged fraud had not been established. 4. On the question of limitation, I am satisfied, after hearing learned Counsel for the petition that the view taken by the lower appellate court is erroneous. Prior to the year 1947 applications for setting aside such sales were governed by the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC and the period of limitation fixed for setting aside the sale was 30 days. In 1947 the Orissa Tenancy Act underwent an amendment, and by Section 228(2) a new provision was inserted enabling the judgment debtor to challenge an auction-sale within three months from the date of the sale. The lower appellate Court held that the Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of this new Section 228(2) as the sale had been held at a time when Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC governed the case. In this view he was of opinion that the objection by the judgment-debtor should have been filed with in one month of the date of his knowledge, that is to say within one month after 17-4-50. Admittedly, the petition in this case was not filed within, one month after the date of knowledge, but within three months after that date. The position therefore is this. If Section 18 of the Limitation Act were to apply, as has been held by the lower appellate court, the time should run from the date when the fraud came to be known to the person injuriously affected hereby. If 17-4-50 is the starting point of the period of limitation what is the law that should govern the case? There can be no doubt that by that date Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC ceased to be in force so far as rent sales were concerned. The law applicable to this case is that laid down in the new Section 228(2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act. The Petitioner can justly invoke the provisions of this Section as giving him the cause of action for instituting his present application. It is well settled that no person has vested right in matters relating to procedure. The law applicable to this case is that laid down in the new Section 228(2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act. The Petitioner can justly invoke the provisions of this Section as giving him the cause of action for instituting his present application. It is well settled that no person has vested right in matters relating to procedure. The lower appellate court was of opinion that the decree holder had acquired a vested right, thirty days after the sale and that if Section 18 of the Limitation Act were to be applied the old law laid down in Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC would still govern the case. In this he was in error. 5. On the question of fraud, the lower appellate court differed from the trial court's view, holding that the non-examination of the identifier or of the decree-holder and the inconclusive evidence given by the drummer would not be sufficient to establish the alleged fraud practised by the decree-holder. But as I have stated already certain very important circumstances were lost sight of by the lower appellate court. The first is the fact that the judgment-debtor sent a sum of money by M.O. (Ext. 1) to the decree-holder and it was received by the decree-holder's son. Such conduct would have been improbable and unnatural if the applicant had really knowledge of the auction sale. Secondly, Exts. 2 and 3 which are water-rate receipts and Exts. 5 to 7 which are parchas and other documents, would show that the applicant is an absentee tenant who usually works in Raigarh in Madhya Pradesh. The money order receipt is, I think, a very important piece of evidence which seems to have been overlooked by the Court below. A third circumstance going in favour of the Petitioner is that he filed a suit for commutation of rent in the year 1949. This he would not have done had he been aware of the court-sale. Having regard to all these considerations I am of opinion that the view taken by the Rent Suit Deputy collector is nearer the truth than the one taken by the lower appellate court. The very fact that half an acre of land had been sold for the petty sum of Rs. 23/- is itself an indication of fraud. Having regard to all these considerations I am of opinion that the view taken by the Rent Suit Deputy collector is nearer the truth than the one taken by the lower appellate court. The very fact that half an acre of land had been sold for the petty sum of Rs. 23/- is itself an indication of fraud. I would accordingly allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restore that of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector. The sale is hereby directed to be set aside. The applicant shall have the costs of this litigation throughout. Hearing fee in this Court assessed at Rs. 35/-/- (rupees thirty five only). Final Result : Allowed