1. The Judge of Hooghly, in making this reference to the Court, and in observing on the precedents which have been cited before him or brought to his notice, appears not to have remarked the change in the law introduced by Section 6 of the present Limitation Act. The corresponding section of the repealed Act IX of 1871 declared that--'When by any law not mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, and now or hereafter to be in force in any part of British India, a period of limitation differing from that prescribed by this Act, is specially prescribed for any suits, appeals, or applications, nothing herein contained shall affect such law;' so that when by any special enactments, which continued in force, such as the Rent Act, any period of limitation differing from that prescribed by Act IX of 1871 was prescribed, then the provisions of Act IX were wholly inapplicable to such cases, and, therefore, the petitioner for review would be bound to present his application precisely within the time specified by the law in question. But Section 6 of the present Act is in these terms: 'When by any special or local law, now or hereafter in force in British India, a period of limitation is specially prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application, nothing herein contained shall affect or alter the period so prescribed.' So that, according to this section, the period prescribed by Section 103 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 remains unaltered, but the rules prescribed by the Limitation Act for computing the period of limitation are applicable. Therefore the party applying for review would be entitled to the benefit of the rules contained in Section 12 of the Act. At the same time it is not apparent that any useful purpose has been answered by making this reference, because the application is to review the judgment of Mr. Brett, who was the acting Judge of Hooghly in the month of September last. The application is made to Mr. Grant in the month of November, and as it will appear from a perusal of the petition which we sent for that purpose, that the application rests upon supposed errors of judgment. It would seem that Section 624 of the Procedure Code would bar the entertainment of the application by any Judge other than the Judge who delivered the judgment.