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 deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the trial Court for hearing the suit on merits.
