JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, I.A.S. Member - This review petition has been directed against the order dated 17-12-1991 passed by this court in Second appeal No. 49 of 1984-84/Rai Bareli Bhagauti v. Gaudin. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the opposite party has urged that the review petition itself being time barred is not maintainable. According to him, the period of limitation for review of a judgment is 30 days whereas the petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation. Reliance has been placed on 1982 RD 286. His second submission is that the petition in not maintainable because the respondents 3 to 7 have not been impleaded as parties. Reliance has been placed on 1963 RD 311. The petition, according to the learned counsel, is also not maintainable because it has not been properly presented. His last submission is that there is to apparent error on he face of the record. 3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that since the review has been filed under Section 273 of the U.P. Tenancy Act the period of limitation for filing a review petition is 90 days. In reply, the learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that Section 213 UP Tenancy Act is not applicable and the period of limitation would be governed by Order XLVII of the CPC and Section 341 of the UP. Zaminadri Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. Section 273 of the UP Tenancy Act provided that :- "The Board, on it own motion or on the application of a party to the case, may review and may rescind, alter or confirm any decree or order made by itself, or by a single member." Under Article 8 of Group-F of the Schedule to the Act, the period of limitation for review of the judgment is 90 days. 5. There is no such provisions under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 5. There is no such provisions under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Certain Acts have, however, been applied to the proceedings of the Act under Section 341 of the Act which runs as under :- "Unless otherwise expressly provide by or under this Act, the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)and the Limitation Act, 1963 (XXXVI of 1963) (including Section 5 thereof) shall apply to the proceedings under this Act." Since there is no specific provision for the period of limitation for filing a review against a judgment, the provisions of Order XLVII of the CPC and the Limitation Act shall, therefore, apply with its full force. This controversy has been set at rest by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shitla Prasad v. Bans Bahore, 1974 RD 84 Their Lordships have observed that 'the Act it self is self-contained in the matter of limitation also Therefore, Section 341 of the Act must be given its full play and its ambit should not be artificially restricted by reference to Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act' Section 273 of the U.P. Tenancy Act is, therefore altogether irrelevant in the face of the provisions contained under Section 341 of the UPZA & LR Act. This view has also been taken by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in Ekram Singh v. State, 1982 RD 286. 6. The judgment was delivered on 17-12-1991 and his petition was presented before the Board on 14-2-1992. No application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed probably under the wrong notion that the period of limitation is 90 days. The matter would have been different of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been made and the condonation of delay was sought. Since there is no application for the condonation of delay nor was there any prayer for it, the delay cannot be condoned even on compassionate ground. The legal position so far as the limitation is concerned, is quite clear and I hale no option but to hold that this review petition being time-barred is not maintainable. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1976 RD 53. Baharuddin v. Gaon Sabha. I have carefully gone through this ruling. The legal position so far as the limitation is concerned, is quite clear and I hale no option but to hold that this review petition being time-barred is not maintainable. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1976 RD 53. Baharuddin v. Gaon Sabha. I have carefully gone through this ruling. I am afraid, this ruling is of no help to the petitioner. To sum up, the period of limitation for filing a review petition is 30 days as provided under Article 124 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. 8. In the result, this review petition being time-barred, is dismissed.