Order Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: This is an application for review of my order dated May 18, 2001 by which I turned down the prayer of the present applicant for sale under section 3 of the Partition Act in a suit for partition. 2. There is no dispute that on July 21, 1987 R.N. Pyne, J. (as His Lordship then was ) passed an order in terms of section 2 of the Partition Act directing sale of the property with a finding that the property was not partable. 3. Long thereafter defendant No.5 came up with a prayer for sale of the property by public auction by already appointed Commissioner for partition after fresh valuation at the then market rate. Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J. by an order dated March 1, 2000 disposed of such application by holding that the previous order dated July 21, 1987 passed by Pyne, J. was in operation even on that day and the Commissioner of Partition was directed to sell the property in question in terms of the order dated July 21, 1987 by public auction upon publishing advertisement in two local daily newspapers. The Commissioner of Partition was directed to settle the sale notice in a meeting of the parties. It was further ordered that the sale should be concluded three months from that date. 4. In the year 2001 the plaintiff came up with an application under section 3 of the Partition Act intending to purchase the property at the valuation that has been fixed. 5. By an order dated May 18, 2001 I rejected such application mainly on the ground that as an order under section 2 of the Partition Act had been passed in the year 1987, at that stage such application could not be maintainable. 6. Being dissatisfied the plaintiff has come up with an instant application for review. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff by placing strong reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Nitish Chandra & Anr. vs. Promode Kumar. 6. Being dissatisfied the plaintiff has come up with an instant application for review. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff by placing strong reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Nitish Chandra & Anr. vs. Promode Kumar. & Ors., reported in 1953 Calcutta 18, contended with vehements that in my order there is an error apparent on the face of the record, In view of the fact that in paragraph 12 of the said decision the Division Bench opined that right to apply under section 3 of the Partition Act accrues only on passing of an order under section 2 thereof and there is no period of limitation for filing such application. 8. According to Mr. Chakraborty even if the order under section 2 was passed in the year 1987 since the actual sale has not yet taken place pursuant to such order, his client was entitled to come up with an application under section 3 at any point of time. 9. Mr. Chakraborty further contends that the order passed by Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J. as mentioned above should be treated to be a fresh order under section 2 of the Partition Act and at any rate, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there is a period of limitation for filing such application, time should run from the date of passing of the order by Mitra, J. 10. Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the defendant No.5 and Mr. Bose appearing on behalf of the defendant No.1 have strenuously opposed such contention of Mr. Chakraborty and have contended that there cannot be any review even on the ground that the Court committed error of law in passing an order sought to be reviewed. They however maintain that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in my order dated May 18, 2001. 11. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record I find that order passed by Mitra, J. cannot be said to be a fresh order under section 2 of the Partition Act. 11. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record I find that order passed by Mitra, J. cannot be said to be a fresh order under section 2 of the Partition Act. His Lordship, as pointed out earlier, specifically mentioned that order of Pyne, J. was still in operation and His Lordship further passed direction for sale in terms of order passed by Pyne, J. Therefore, it cannot be argued by any stretch of imagination that order passed by Mitra, J. is a fresh order under section 2 of the Partition Act. 12. Therefore the only question that falls for determination in this application for review is whether there was an error apparent on the fact of record in not following the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Nitish Chandra & Anr. (supra) wherein the Division Bench has held that there is no period of limitation for filing an application under section 3 of the Partition Act. 13. It appears that Division Bench passed the said order in the case of Nitish Chandra & Anr. (supra) in the year 1951 when Limitation Act, 1963 did not see the light. Prior to the coming into operation of 1963 Limitation Act the consistent view of this court as reflected in the said Division Bench decision was that the then residuary article namely Article 181 of 1908 Limitation Act was meant for application provided in the Code of Civil Procedure and was not applicable to any other application under different Acts. Following the aforesaid consistent view, the Division Bench in paragraph 12 of the judgment held that for the purpose of filing an application under section 3 of the Partition Act there is no period of limitation presumably on the ground that the relief under section 3 of the said Act cannot be said to be a relief provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Even after coming into operation of 1963 Limitation Act, the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1335 maintained the said view. 14. Even after coming into operation of 1963 Limitation Act, the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1335 maintained the said view. However the Larger Bench subsequently in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 282, overruled the said decision reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1335 and held that residuary Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act applies not only to an application provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure but also to other applications under other statutes. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) it cannot be said that the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nitish Chandra & Anr.(supra) is still good law. Thus, in my view, this court did not commit any error by not following the principle laid down by the Division Bench decision in the case Nitish Chandra & Anr. In view of the admitted fact that order under section 2 of the Partition Act was passed in this suit in the year 1987, the present application filed by the plaintiff under section 3 of the Partition Act in the year 2001 is patently barred by limitation. 15. Thus, I do not find any reason to review my order dated May 18, 2001. 16. The application is thus devoid of any substance and dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will however be no order as to costs. However, interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. 17. Since I have disposed of this application before inviting affidavit from the opposite parties, the allegations contained in this application for review should not be treated to have been admitted by the opposite parties. 18. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Application dismissed.