ORDER.- The respondent in I.A. No. 389 of 1971 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil is the petitioner. The revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in I.A. No: 389 of 1971 allowing the application I.A. No. 389 of 1971 filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act (XXXVI of 1963) seeking to excuse the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 17th July, 1969 under section 9 (3) of the Kanyakumari Sreepandaravaka Lands (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXXI of 1964) prescribing a period of three months for filing such appeals with a discretion to the Tribunal to extend the period by two months. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Act (XXXI of 1964) must be deemed to be a complete enactment dealing with the grant of ryotwari patta and that the provision relating thereto and the Act not having provided for an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act the application under section 9 of the Act is inapplicable. In other words, the contention is that the Act is a self-contained enactment. The period for filing an appeal having been provided by section 9 (3), no further application for extension of time by reason of section 5 could be made. The Limitation Act (XXXVI of 1963) came into operation on 1st January, 1964. Section 29 (2) of the said Act runs as follows: “Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law”. It is common ground that there is no provision in Madras Act.(XXXI of 1964) expressly excluding the Limitation Act to applications and appeals provided under the said Act. It is common ground that there is no provision in Madras Act.(XXXI of 1964) expressly excluding the Limitation Act to applications and appeals provided under the said Act. I am, therefore, of the view that in the absence of any specific exclusive, sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply to applications and appeals under the special law unless there is any provision in the special enactment repugnant to such application. The conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge is, therefore, right. I may in this connection refer to a few decisions, one in The Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Mettur Chemicals and Industries Ltd., Salem1, arising under the Madras Port Trust Act and of the Supreme Court in D. P. Mishra v. Kamal Narayan Sarma and another2, arising under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and of the Bombay High Court in Radhesyam Mohanlal Kailan v. The Maharashtra Revenue, Tribunal, Nagpur and others3, arising under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958. There is no merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. S.J. ------------ Petition dismissed.