petitioner that the father-in-law of the petitioner had only one son i.e., the husband of the petitioner and he is the only successor, therefore, the chak nos. 100 and 101 may be recorded in her name. Considering the same, the application was allowed. Therefore, it is apparent that the plea taken by the petitioner was not considered by the Consolidation Officer and on a misconceived and false argument, treating the petitioner as the sole legal heir, the application was allowed, wherein admittedly the husband of the petitioner had two brothers. Since this fact has not been considered that he had also a brother and the allegation of the petitioner is that he was of unsound mind, which has also not been considered and without considering the same and proof thereof, the application was allowed. The petitioner had also not placed on record any material to show that the brother of the husband of the petitioner was of unsound mind, therefore, it is required to be considered. In such a case in which the fraud appears to have been played on the court for obtaining an order, the time is immaterial because the facts mentioned in the application moved by the petitioner are different than in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Therefore, it is required to be examined as to whether the said application was moved or not and if it was moved, why the same was not considered and the order was passed without considering the same and if it was not moved, how a copy has been issued, which has been filed before this Court.
