Order S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 18th July, 1995 and 23rd November, 1996 passed in Title suit No. 37/95, whereby and whereunder, the authorities under B.T. Act condoned a long delay in filing the aforesaid suit under Section 106 of B.T. Act behind the back of the petitioner and thereafter the objection preferred by petitioner was rejected. 2. The brief fact of the case shows that the records of right after revisional survey was prepared and published on 3rd March, 1984 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown as recorded land holder with respect to the land, in dispute. No suit in terms with Section 106 of B.T. Act thereafter preferred by the 5th to 10th Respondents. After about 12 years, they filed the aforesaid Suit No. 37/95 for recording their names with an application for condonation of delay. It was allowed by impugned order dated 18th July, 1995. The petitioner had no knowledge with respect to the said suit and the delay condoned by the authority and after having come to know of the same, she filed an application for recalling the same and objected such condonation of delay. It was rejected vide impugned order dated 23rd November, 1996. 3. The question to be determined, in the present case, is whether any application for condonation of delay in the original suit under Section 106 of B.T. Act is maintainable or not. While according to the petitioner such application for condonation of delay was not maintainable, the provision of C.P.C. and Limitation Act being applicable according to the Counsel for the Respondents, such application was maintainable. 4. From bare perusal of Section 106 of B.T. Act, it will be evident that a suit is maintainable before a Revenue Officer against certificate of final publication of records and rights under Sub-section (2) of Section 103A of the said Act. Therein, three months' period of limitation has been prescribed to prefer such suit under Section 106 of the Act. In such a case, the authority is required to decide the question of title under the said provision. 5. Therein, three months' period of limitation has been prescribed to prefer such suit under Section 106 of the Act. In such a case, the authority is required to decide the question of title under the said provision. 5. So far as the procedure to be followed for trial of such suit under Section 106 of B.T. Act is concerned, the relevant provision is Section 107 of the said Act, wherein it has been laid down that the provision of C.P.C. is required to be followed for trial of such suit and decision in every such proceeding shall have the force and effect of a decree of a Civil Court in a suit between the parties. 6. The provision of limitation is also prescribed under Chapter-XV of B.T. Act, wherein under Section 184 of the Act, limitation to prefer such suits, appeals and applications has been prescribed in Schedule-III, as annexed to the said B.T. Act. 7. Apart from specific limitation, as shown and prescribed under Section 106 of B.T. Act to prefer any suit on one or other ground, the period of limitation has also been shown in Schedule-III of the said Act. 8. From the aforesaid provisions, there is no dispute that the period of limitation has been prescribed under the B.T. Act for preferring a suit at the first instance under Section 106 of B.T. Act. 9. So far as the application of Limitation Act is concerned, the counsel for the parties accept that the provision therein is applicable with respect to appeal etc. and it can be preferred before an authority in terms with the B.T. Act. However, the counsel for the contesting Respondents could not lay hands on any specific provision under the Limitation Act, under which a suit can be preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation, after condonation of delay, in terms with the provisions of the Limitation Act. 10. The counsel for the Respondents relied on Section 6 of the Limitation Act, wherein provisions have been made to file a suit even after period of limitation in certain circumstances. However, he could not point out from the pleadings nor could refer any fact to show as to how such provision of Section 6 is applicable in the case of 5th to 10th Respondents, when no such pleading was made before the authority. 11. However, he could not point out from the pleadings nor could refer any fact to show as to how such provision of Section 6 is applicable in the case of 5th to 10th Respondents, when no such pleading was made before the authority. 11. It is a settled law that the provision of Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the matter of preferring a suit but is only applicable, if any appeal or application other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of C.P.C. is preferred. 12. In view of aforesaid provisions of law, the suit preferred by 5th to 10th Respondents being much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the B.T. Act, was not maintainable being time barred. I also hold that the authorities had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in preferring such suit that too when no specific pleading has been made to get a benefit in terms with Section 6 of Limitation Act. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the impugned orders dated 18th July, 1995 and 23rd November, 1996 passed in Title Suit No. 37/95 and dismiss the said suit. 14. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations.