JUDGMENT 1. On hearing Mr. Das for the Petitioner and Mr. Choudhury for the Opposite Party we are of opinion that the view taken by the District Judge is substantially correct. In our opinion Article 173 of the Indian Limitation Act is not attracted to an application for review of the order of an appellate officer exercising his function under the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. Article 173 of the Limitation Act speaks of review of judgment and prescribes a period of 90 days from the date of the decree or order. In no sense of the word can the decision or order of the Debt Settlement Board or the appellate officer can rank as a judgment and it seems to us that the terms "decree" or "order" refer to decrees or orders made under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It may be pointed out here that Rule 91 (B) of the Rules framed by the Local Government under the provisions of the Agricultural Debtors Act lays down that an application for review of the order or decision of the Debt Settlement Board should be made ordinarily within 60 days from the date of the order. It does not say anything as to what is the period of limitation of an application for review of the order of the appellate officer. In such cases therefore the matter must be left to the discretion of the appellate officer himself and it will be for him to decide whether he will exercise his powers under sec. 44 of the Act at the time when the application for review is presented to him. We therefore agree with the view taken by the District Judge and direct that the matter be sent back to the appellate officer and it will be for the appellate officer to deal not only with the merits of the case but also to consider whether he should consider the application for review at the present moment. Subject to this modification we affirm the order of the District Judge and discharge the Rule. 2. There will be no order as to costs.