1. ' This appeal appears to be time-barred as the impugned order was announced on 30th September, 1986 and the appeal was filed on 11th January, 1987. I find from the certified true copy of the order that the fee was estimated on 28-10-1986 and the copy was made ready on 30th October, 1986 but the appellant has taken about one month and twenty-four days' in supplying the stamps on 24-12-1986 and copy was delivered on the same day i.e. 24-12-1986. However, even if we ignored this delay for one month twenty-four days still the difficulty for the appellant is that the appellant could have filed appeal on 24-12-1986 when the High Court was open but it was not filed and the appellant waited for opening of the High Court after December vacation. Even after the opening of the High Court, the appellant has not filed appeal, i.e. On '10-1-1987 but it was filed on 11- 1-1987. The appellant's counsel Mr.Mahmoodul Hassan has submitted that there is only one day's delay i.e. Instead of filing the appeal on the opening day of the High Court he has filed appeal on the next day and, therefore, in the interest of justice the time should be extended. I am sorry, I cannot do so in view of the fact that time allowed for filing of appeal is only 30 days and section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply in this case. In view of the provision of section 29 of the Limitation Act which excludes 'the application of section 5 of Limitation Act in a case where special act provides the particular period of limitation. This being the position, this appeal is A found to be barred by time and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. I may also note here that the impugned order is based upon the unrebutted testimony of the respondent, therefore, also, it would have been useless to admit this appeal. Similarly Miscellaneous Applications are also dismissed.