Judgment :- ORDER OF REFERENCE MISHRA, J Heard. A question has arisen in this case whether the period of limitation prescribed under S. 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, under which a prohibition of a sort is imposed upon the jurisdiction of the High Court entertaining revision petition to extend the thirty days already fixed under the said provision for another thirty days only, whether it amounts to excluding the application of S. 5 of the Limitation Act or not. Although it appears there is no direct decision on this question, the office of the Court has referred to a decision of a learned single judge of this Court under which certain observations are made which appear to indicate that invoking Ss. 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act is not permissible. It is a fit case, in my opinion, in which the question of maintainability of a petition in revision beyond a period of sixty days with an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay should be listed before a Division Bench and an authoritative view is taken. Let the papers be accordingly placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for orders as to posting before a Division Bench. ORDER Nainar Sundaram, A.C.J. On being referred to a Bench by Mishra, J. the question of maintainability of a revision under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act, beyond a period of sixty days with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the revision has come up before us for consideration. S. 25 of the Act is in pari materia with S. 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Tamilnadu Act. The question of condoning the delay in preferring a revision beyond the time prescribed under S. 25 of the Tamilnadu Act stands already answered in the negative by pronouncements of learned single Judges of this Court, Vide— (1) Rakhu v. Vasanthalakshmi (C.M.P. No. 3128/75 C.R.P.S.R. No. 826/75, order dated 21.10.75 Sethuraman, J. concisely reported in 1975 II M.L.J., (S.N.)19; (2) Ramanatha Rao v. Janarthanan - C.R.P.S.R. No. 55330/80 C.M.P.S.R. No. 80098/80 - Order dated 20.8.82 - K.B.N. Singh, C.J. Reported in (1982) 95 L.W. 742 . (3) Ratnasabapathy v. Ramiah C.M.P.S.R. 119324/84 - C.R.P.S.R. 118214/84 - Order dated 2.12.1985 - Sengottuvelan, J. The above pronouncements, though of learned single Judges of this Court, are well laid down and are portent on the subject. We fully endorse the ratio countenanced in them, and there is no warrant to depart or differ from the said pronouncements of this Court. Applying the ratio expressed in the said pronouncements of this Court, to this revision arising under the Act, the papers in this Revision are rejected.