Limitation under special statute excludes general condonation where no enabling provision exists for delayed revision filings.

A special statute prescribing a fixed period for filing revision and containing no express power to extend time excludes recourse to section 5 of the Limitation Act. The general condonation provision does not apply where the special law is self-contained on limitation, and delay cannot be excused without a specific enabling clause. On the stated facts, the explanation for delay was also found insufficient, so the revision remained barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in filing the revision could be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act in proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, and whether the revision was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The revision under the special Adhiniyam was required to be filed within the period prescribed by section 19, but that provision did not contain any power to extend time or condone delay. In the absence of such a specific enabling provision, the general power under section 5 of the Limitation Act was held inapplicable to the proceedings. The explanation for the delay was also found insufficient, as no sufficient cause was shown for the relevant period.

Conclusion: Delay could not be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the revision was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a limitation period for revision and does not provide for condonation of delay, the general provision for condonation under section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply.

---