Tarun Chatterjee, J : This revisional application raises amongst others a question which has already been decided by me in the case of Minor Subir Ranjan Mondal vs. Sitanath Mukherjee. reported in 1994 (1) CLJ 106. One of the question that is raised in this revisional application is whether, in & pre-emption proceeding filed under s. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), s. 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay in filing the application under s. 8 of the Act attracted or not. Precisely this question was decided by me in the aforesaid decision. In that decision. 1 have given my reasons for the conclusion that s. 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted to a proceeding under s. 8 of the Act. The learned Advocate for the pre-emptor/petitioner tried to persuade me to change my views expressed in the decision reported in 1994( 1) CLJ 106 by making an elaborate argument. A written argument has been filed on behalf of the pre-emptor/petitioner incorporating therein the argument in support of the conclusion that an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable in a proceeding under s. 8 of the Act. In the written