1. The question in this case is whether in respect of a revision from an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta under Section 11 of Madras Act 26 of 1948, there is in him or the Director of Settlement the power to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Ismail J. held that there is no such power. We are in entire agreement with this view. A specific rule has been framed under the rule-making power provided in Section 67 on the reference to Section 11 that the revision petition to the Settlement Officer or a revision to the Director should be filed within a specified time. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been expressly excluded. That means neither the Settlement Officer nor the Director of Settlements has the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.
2. It is true that there is no limitation provided for a revision under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act. But the order in the instant, case will not fall within the purview of the power under Section 5 or Section 7, because of the specific provision providing for a revision against the orders passed under Section 11 of the Act. The special excludes the general.
3. The appeal is dismissed. Nocosts.