( 1 ) THIS petition under Sec. 115 CPC is directed against an order made by the Addl Civil Judge at Shimoga in LAC. 193 11972. By that order, the learned Civil Judge rejected an application for the issue of a dirtion to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference pursuant to Section 18 (3) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein was a claimant in LAC. 2/65-66, a land acquisition proceeding for determination of compensation, on the file of the Assistant Commissioner and the Land Acquisition Officer, Shimoga, the repondent herein. On the passing of an award and the service of notice of the same on the petitioner, he filed an application seeking a reference to a Civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the act ). For some reason or another, the respondent neither made a relererence to the Court nor passed any order on the said application. Consequently, the petitioner applied to the Civil Judge at Shimoga under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act, requesting for appropriate orders compelling the Land Acquisition Officer to make the reference. The said application was filed on 1st July 1972 i. e. , within three years from the date of service of the notice of the award on him. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that it was beyond 90 days. In this context he noticed the ruling of this Court in Muniswamappa v. Ramiah and seems to have assumed that the said decision was in support of the view that such an application to a Civil Court ought to be made within 90 days. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing Sri B. G. Sridharah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 1 am clearly of the view that the order of the learned Civil judge cannot be sustained. It is seen from the provisions of S. 18 (3) (b) of the Act that no specific period of limitation has been prescribed thereunder. In Muniswamappa's case 1973 (1) Myslj. 65. It is seen from the provisions of S. 18 (3) (b) of the Act that no specific period of limitation has been prescribed thereunder. In Muniswamappa's case 1973 (1) Myslj. 65. , referred to earlier this Court has held that in the absence of any specific prescription as regards limitaion for applications, as the one concerned herewith, Art. 137 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act would apply v/herein a period of limitation of three years has been provided commencing from the date of accrual of the right to apply for relief. The learned Civil Judge was clearly in error in thinking that the said decision had provided for a period of limitation of 90 days only, while rejecting the application of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE question whether or not Article 137 of the Schedule to the limitation Act would apply to cases of applications arising under Special statutes, as distinguished from proceedings arising under the Civil procedure Code, has now been set at rest by the decision of the Supreme court in the case of the Kerala Stafe Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T. P. Kunhaliumma AIR. 1977 SC. 282. . It has been held therein that in the absence of any specific prescription in regard to limitation concerning applications and petitions arising under special Acts, Article 137 would apply. The relevant enunciation reads : "the changed definition, of the words "applicant" and "application" contained in Section 2 (a) and 2 (b) of the 1963 Limitation Act indicates the object of the Limitation Act to include petitions, original or otherwise, under special laws. The interpretation which was given to Article 181 of the 1908 Limitation Act on the principle of ejusdem generis is not applicable with regard to Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act. Article 137 stands in isolation from all other article in Part-I of the third division. This Court in Nityananda joshi's case ( AIR 1970 SC 209 ) has rightly thrown doubt on the two Judge Bench decision of this Court in Athani Municipal council case (AIR 1969 SC 1235) where this Court construed article 137 to be referable to applications under the Civil procedure Code. Article 137 includes petitions within the word "applications". These petitions and applications can be under any special Act as in the present case". Article 137 includes petitions within the word "applications". These petitions and applications can be under any special Act as in the present case". ( 5 ) AS a result of th foregoing, this petition is accepted and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the application in L. A. C. 193/1972 stands allowed. The respondent is hereby directed to make a reference to a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter within 90 days from the, date of receipt of this order in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. In the circumstances, there will be no orders as to costs. --- *** --- .