Judgment :- 1. The Electricity O.P. filed by the revision petitioner before the lower court was dismissed on the ground of limitation. His petition to condone the delay was dismissed on the ground that the court exercising jurisdiction under S.16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act has no jurisdiction to consider an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act. The court also held that there were no sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. 2. This Court in K.S.E.B. v. Cheriyan Varghese (1989(1) K.L.T. 451) held that the order of the District Court under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act is revisable under S.115 C.P.C. for the reason that the order is that of a "Court". 3. In State of Kerala v. Syamala Thamburatti (1980 KLT 34 F.B.) a Full Bench of this Court held that if there is no provision which excludes any of the provisions in S.4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, those sections will be applicable to the extent to which those provisions have not been expressly excluded by a special or local law. This is also the gist of S.29(2) of the Limitation Act. 4. No authority was relied on for the contention that proceedings underS.16(3) of the Telegraph Act is similar to a suit. According to the Section the proceeding is only an application. Accordingly I hold that the proceeding is not a "suit". Therefore the view of the lower court that S.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to a proceeding under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act, is not correct. 5. The lower court held that the ground raised for condoning the delay cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner's former Advocate did not file any affidavit before that court. The petitioner has filed an affidavit to the effect that his former Advocate shifted his practice from Pathanamthitta to Ranni, and therefore he was unable to file the petition before the Pathanamthitta court in time. There is no affidavit controverting this averment. 6. However the petitioner is liable to pay costs, in view of the laches on his part. I suggested to the petitioner that 1 % of the total claim may be fixed as the cost for condoning the delay. Now the petitioner has filed a statement dated 23rd October, 1989 limiting his claim to Rs. 20,000/-. 6. However the petitioner is liable to pay costs, in view of the laches on his part. I suggested to the petitioner that 1 % of the total claim may be fixed as the cost for condoning the delay. Now the petitioner has filed a statement dated 23rd October, 1989 limiting his claim to Rs. 20,000/-. Under the circumstances of this case, there will be an order that in case cost Rs. 200/- is paid to the respondent within two months from this date, this C.R.P. as well as I.A. 898/87 filed before the lower court will stand allowed. In that case the lower court will take back O.P. No. 115/87 to its file and dispose it of in accordance with law. In case the cost is not paid as directed, the C.R.P. will stand dismissed.