( 1 ) HEARD Shri G. V. Wani, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R. R. Mantri, Advocate for the respondent.

( 2 ) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, taken up forthwith for hearing.

( 3 ) IT is to be noted that the respondent Mathurabai died during pendency of this petition. The respondents Nos. 1 (A) to 1 (E) are the legal representatives of the original respondent. By this petition, the present petitioners are challenging the order dated 17-9-2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik division, Nasik in RTS/review/187/04 condoning the delay in preferring the review petition by the deceased Mathurabai.

( 4 ) RELEVANT facts are as under : mutation Entry No. 20740 came to be effected in favour of the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said entry, deceased Mathurabai filed an appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora which was decided on 17-4-2000 and the appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner approached the Additional Collector, Jalgaon. However, the said proceedings were dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed revision under section 257 of the Code before the Additional Commissioner, nasik Division, Nasik. The Additional Commissioner heard the matter on 13-1- 2004 and passed the order on 16-1-2004. On 13-1-2004 i. e. at the time of hearing of the said revision, respondent Mathurabai was absent. Thereafter Mathurabai filed two applications dated 31-1-2004 and 24-2-2004 for recall of the said order. Along with the application dated 24-2-2004, she has enclosed the notice dated 26-12-2003 which was received by Mathurabai on 16-1-2004 and as such, she could not remain present on the date of hearing of the revision i. e. on 13-1-2004.

( 5 ) WHEN the second application was filed by her on 24-2-2004, she was made to understand that the application for recall of the order cannot be entertained and at the most, review petition can be filed in the said matter. In the month of July, 2004, Mathurabai preferred the review petition under section 258 of the Code along with an application for condonation of delay. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Commissioner condoned the delay in filing the review petition. In the order, the learned Additional Commissioner has observed that though the revision was posted on 13-1-2004, Mathurabai received the notice on 16-1-2004. Considering the facts and circumstances, the delay has been condoned by the Additional Commissioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.

( 6 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as per the provisions of clause (4) of sub-section (1) of section 258 of the Code, no application for review can be entertained beyond the period of 90 days from the date of passing of the order. It is submitted that the order came to be passed on 16-1-2004. As the review petition is not filed within 90 days from the date of order, it is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that there is no specific provision in the Code for condonation of delay and as such, the Commissioner has erred in law in condoning the delay.

( 7 ) AS against this, Shri Mantri learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no express bar in the Code thereby excluding the 'application for review' beyond the period of limitation as provided under the Limitation Act. He submits that in view of the provisions of section 29 of the Limitation Act, the respondent is entitled to file application for condonation of delay. Sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act is as under : "sec. 29 (2): Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and