JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution against an order of the appellate authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The Bargadar died after the close of the term. The term was for five years from 1358 B. S. to 1363 B. S. In 1364 B. S the bargadar died and he did not deliver the produce. Both the authorities below have granted orders in favor of the owner. 2. The first question that has been raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that the sons are not liable. It is indeed true that during the entire term of the barga settlement the father was alive and so liable. After the period of five years expired the bargadar continued in possession not on the basis of the contract but on the terms of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Therefore he would still be liable as bargadar but the liability of the heirs should be limited to the extent of the assets that they got from their father. In that view of the matter, the orders of the authorities below must be varied to this extent that the entire amount will be realised from the assets of the deceased bargadar in the hands of the petitioners before me. 3. Another question was sough to be raised and that is that the present proceeding is barred under the law of limitation. Unfortunately, there is no law of limitation with regard to the petition before the Bhagchas Officer. Ordinarily, it is now a settled law that the law of limitation as under the Limitation Act does not apply to any proceeding other than in a civil court where the procedure is under the Code of Civil Procedure. There was at one time some dispute about it but subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court, in Sha Mulchand and Co. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., (1) 1953 S. C. R. 351, it cannot now be disputed that except for the articles referring to the Indian Arbitration Act for which there are specific provisions, articles under the Limitation Act refer to suits or proceedings filed in a civil court. This is not a suit nor proceeding in a civil court. Therefore the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act would not apply. This is not a suit nor proceeding in a civil court. Therefore the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act would not apply. Even then, had these tribunals been Civil Courts even then section 29 of the Limitation Act would not help the debtor. Section 29 says that unless there is a special provision the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply. "remaining" means other than section 4 and sections 9 and 18 and 22. Therefore none of the articles apply. 4. The result is that I cannot hold that the petition was barred by time. The judgment and order of the tribunal are only modified to the extent that in execution of the order, the owner would be entitled to realise the sum awarded out of the assets left by the deceased in the hands of the petitioners before me. Except for this modification the orders of the tribunals below are affirmed and except for this variation, the Rule is discharged. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs.