Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial questions of law formulated and to be answered in this second appeal are as under:--

"(i) Whether both the Courts below were justified in excluding the notice period under Section 80 of "the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while computing the period of limitation for institution of suit under Section 57(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959?

(ii) Whether in the light of the provision of Clause (F) of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, two Courts below were justified in proceeding with the suit put forth by the plaintiff and granting relief?"

[For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court.]

In order to answer the, afore-stated substantial questions of law, required facts in nutshell, are as under:--

"2.1 Plaintiff- Dinesh Kumar Khare commenced an action seeking declaration of title stating inter alia that the Naib Tahsildar, Durg initiated encroachment proceeding against him, in which, question of title was raised and ultimately, by order dated 25/04/1982 the matter was referred to the Sub-Divisional-Officer, Durg for decision under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

2.2 It is further case of the plaintiff that by order dated 12/03/1985, proceeding was closed and the application was dismissed holding that applicant-Dinesh Kumar Khare has failed to establish his title. The certified copy of the order dated 12/03/1985 was delivered to the plaintiff on 17/04/1985 and suit came to be filed on 11/06/1986, after serving notice to the defendant/State under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating inter alia that the order of Sub-Divisional Officer is bad in law and prayed for appropriate relief.

2.3 The Defendant/State submitted his written statement and took a principal defence that the suit ought to have brought within one year from the date of order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 12/03/1985 and suit filed on 11/06/1986 is barred by Section 57(3) of the Code and prayed that suit be dismissed as barred by limitation.

2.4 The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 09/05/1992 decreed the suit holding inter alia that the plaintiff is titleholder of the suit land bearing old Khasra No. 402 and new Khasra No. 276 area 2.91 Acers and granted decree in favour of the plaintiff.

2.5 The defendant/State filed the First Appeal before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by trial Court. The First Appellate Court held that land was duly settled vide Exhibit P-5 in favour of the plaintiff, but land could not be recorded in the name of the plaintiff and further held that the notice period of two months spent under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has to be excluded under Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act while computing the period of limitation for institution of suit under Section 57(3) of the Code.

2.6 Questioning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court, Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the defendant, in which, substantial questions of law formulated is mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment."

2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and decree of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection.

Answer to substantial question No. 1:--

3. In order to answer the first substantial question of law, Section 57(3) of the Code is required to be noticed:--

"57(3)- Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) may institute a civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order."

4. A close reading of sub-section 3 of Section 57 of the Code would show that any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) of the Code may institute a