Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the plaintiff's second appeal is as under:-

"Whether findings of both the courts below regarding bar of jurisdiction as provided under Section 257 (L-1) of CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 is perverse ?"

[In this appeal the parties will be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court.]

2. The essential facts required to be noticed in order to answer the substantial question of law are as under:-

(i) The appellants/plaintiffs herein filed a suit for declaration of their title over the suit land and also sought declaration that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpurnagar dated 15.6.1994 be declared null and void and the defendants be restrained from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit land. It was also pleaded that order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpurnagar under Section 170-B of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as "Code') is without jurisdiction and without authority of law as the transaction is valid and legal and it could not have been declared illegal by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue).

(ii) The defendants filed their written statement and also raised a plea that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in Section 257 (L-1) of the Code barring jurisdiction of the civil Court as the revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.

(iii) The trial Court by its order dated 12.5.2000 taken up the issue No.5 relating to jurisdiction of the Court as preliminary issue and reached to the conclusion that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpurnagar under Section 170B of the Code has been challenged in the suit, as such jurisdiction of the civil Court is expressly barred by the provisions contained in Section 257 (L-1) of the Code and thereby rejected the plaint.

(iv) Feeling aggrieved against the order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint, the plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No. 9A/2000 before the First Appellate Court.

(v) The First Appellate Court after hearing the appeal affirmed the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the plaint holding that the trial Court has rightly held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the matter in the light of provisions contained in Section 257 (L-1) of the Code

(vii) Questioning the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed, in which substantial question of law framed has been incorporated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

3. Mr. P.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed substantial legal error in applying the provisions contained in Section 257 (L-1) of the Code to the facts of the present case for the reason that order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpurnagar under Section 170B of the Code on 15.6.1994 and the suit seeking declaration of that order of the SDO as null and void was instituted on 18.8.1994, whereas the provisions contained in Section 257 (L-1) of the Code came into statute book w.e.f. 15.12.1995, which cannot be applied with retrospective effect to the facts of the instant case and therefore, both the Courts below have committed illegality in holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. He would alternatively submit that despite bar contained in Section 257 (L-1) of the Code, even then, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and consider the matter to the extent whether the authority concerned has complied with the procedure prescribed or not while holding an enquiry and passing the order though such jurisdiction is limited, therefore, order passed by the trial Court rejecting the plaint and affirming by the First Appellate Court de