D. Chatterjee, J.
1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Article 14 of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act (Act XV of 1877). That Article is intended for suits for setting aside any act or order of a Government Officer in his official capacity and the period of limitation is one year from the date of the act or order. The present suit is under Section 83 of the Central Provinces Land Bevenue Act of 1881, which provides for suits for the setting aside of certain decisions or for the cancellation or amendment of certain entries. The present suit was for the cancellation or amendment of certain entries made in the record-of rights, The suit, therefore, is not for setting aside any order of a Government Officer. The question, therefore, left for decision is whether the suit is for the setting aside of an act of a Gevernment Officer.
2. Now a Bevenue Officer is, no doubt, a Government Officer who can be said to act when he makes an entry in the Begister. Such an act cannot be set aside by a Civil Court except under any statutory power.
3. The statutory power given under Section 83 of the Central Provinces Land Bevenue Act is not to set aside the entry but to cancel or amend it. The suit, therefore, as brought, does not come within the strict wording of Article 14, and if it does not, it must come within the provisions of Article 120; and, if that is so, the suit is not barred.
4. In this view, the appeal is decreed and the case is sent back to the Court of first instance for a proper decision in accordance with law.
5. Costs will abide the result.
S.A. No. 228 of 1910.
6. Appeal No. 228 also must be remanded, for its decision depends a great deal upon the decision of the question in Suit No. 610 of 1S08 which has been dealt with in Appeal No. 175 of 1910.
7. If the parties desire to adduce any fresh evidence in both these oases, they will be allowed an opportunity of doing so.
8. Costs will abide the result.