JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The auction-purchaser in an execution sale which was held on 5-12-51 is the Petitioner before me. The judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. to set aside the sale, on 9th of July, 1952 more than 7 months after the date of sale. He alleged that the sale was vitiated by material irregularities is that there was no true proclamation etc. and that the price fetched at the Court auction was quite inadequate. The auction-purchaser contended that the petition was barred by time and that there was due proclamation. Both the lower courts found that there was no proper service and proper proclamation and also held that the petition was in time and set aside the sale. 2. Mr. K.M. Swain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that, even on the assumption that there was no proper proclamation and service of sale processes, the lower courts erred in holding that the petition was not barred by virtue of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Article 166 of the Limitation Act is the Article which provides for time for filing of a petition to set aside the bee. Article 166 provides 30 days for a petition under the CPC to set aside a sale in execution of a decree. The present sale in execution, is a sale in execution of a rent decree and u/s 228 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, the period fixed for filing an application to set aside the sale is 5 months from the date of sale. The present sale in execution, is a sale in execution of a rent decree and u/s 228 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, the period fixed for filing an application to set aside the sale is 5 months from the date of sale. The present petition is admittedly filed more than 7 months after the date of sale and in order to be within time, the judgment-debtor most make out a case as provided for in Section 18 of the Limitation Act which runs as: Where any person having a right to institute a suit or make an application has, by means of fraud, been kept from the knowledge of such right or of the title on which it is founded, or where any document necessary to establish such right has been fraudulently concealed from him, the time limited for instituting a suit or making an application (a) against the person guilty of the fraud or accessory thereto, or (b) against any person claiming through him otherwise than in good faith and for a valuable consideration, shall be computed from the time when the fraud first became known to the person injuriously affected thereby, or, in the case of the concealed document, when he first had the means of producing it or compelling its production. Under this section, it is incumbent upon the judgment-debtor-Applicant to set aside the sale to prove not only that he was kept out of knowledge of the date of sale or the right to file the application, but also that this was due to the fraud of the person against whom he claims the relief. As far as I can see from the judgments of both the Courts, there is absolutely no discussion of any evidence with regard to this aspect of the case. The appellate court merely comes to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor came to know of the sale some time before 10-7-1952, that is, the date when the order of delivery of possession was returned by the process server and then jumps to the conclusion, "As the period of limitation of one month provided u/s 18 of the Limitation Act will run from the date of knowledge the application dated 9-7-1952 is In time." I do not find any statement of one month in Section 18. Section 18 read with Article 166 may give one month's time from the date of knowledge, but a mere statement to that effect, 'as stated by the Deputy Collector with appellate powers, Is not enough. To bring the case u/s 18, there must be a categorical finding to the effect that the judgment-debtor was kept out of the knowledge of the sale or his right to file an application to set aside the sale by fraud or that the auction purchaser was an accessory to that fraud. In the trial court judgment also I do not get any finding or discussion of any evidence with regard to this aspect. It is simply stated that the case of the Applicant is that the auction-purchaser in collusion with the decree-holder's people has bought about the sale of this valuable piece of land worth about Rs. 10,000/- for a paltry sum of Rs. 220/- by -fraudulent suppression of sale notices and that the fact of the sale came to 'Applicants knowledge only on 4-7-1952 although the land had been sold always far back as on 5-4-1951. There is absolutely no statement with regard to the facts required to be proved u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Under these circumstances, as there is no finding with regard to the requirement of Section 18 and presumably there is no evidence with regard to that, I hold that the petition filed more than 7 months after the date of sale is barred by time. The order of the lower court is set aside. The revision is allowed with costs. Hearing fees. 50/-. 3. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed