JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The short point in this appeal filed by the unsuccessful Defendants 2 to 5 in the Courts below is whether or not by reason of the amendment of the Orissa Tenants Relief (Amendment) Act (Orissa Act 29 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the amending Act), the suit pending before the trial court will remain stayed. The point arose in the following circumstances. 2. Ananda Sahu and Gopinath Sahu (both deceased) were Bhag-tenants under the Plaintiff. Ananda died on July 1, 1938 and Gopinath died on August 11, 1958. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Anand and Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons and Defendant No. 5 is the widow of Gopinath. The Plaintiff's case is that Bhagchasi right being not hereditary the Defendants are not Bhag-tenants but are trespassers. Accordingly the Plaintiff filed the suit on July 26, 1961 for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits. 3. The defence, inter-alia, so far as material for the present purpose is that the Defendants were joint Bhag-tenants with their respective fathers; the Plaintiff had accepted the Defendants as tenants and they were inducted as such tenants; in the Current Settlement record-of-rights the Defendants are shown as Sikimi tenants; that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. The trial court by its judgment dated October 29, 1962 found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the Defendants; they were trespassers and were liable to be evicted; the suit was decreed accordingly. The trial court also found that civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In appeal the learned lower appellate Court by its judgment dated March 31, 1\)64 upheld the findings of the trial Court including the finding that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is from this decision that the Defendants filed the second appeal on July 13, 1964. 5. In this appeal the only point urged on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants is that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in these circumstances. On November 14, 1904 when the second appeal was pending the Defendants filed an application before the O.T.R. Court being O.T.R. case No. 14 of 1964-65, stating that the Defendants are the tenants and the Plaintiff is the landlord. On November 14, 1904 when the second appeal was pending the Defendants filed an application before the O.T.R. Court being O.T.R. case No. 14 of 1964-65, stating that the Defendants are the tenants and the Plaintiff is the landlord. The Defendants' point is that in view of the O.T.R. proceeding the civil Court has no jurisdiction. It was submitted on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants that the suit should therefore be dismissed. 6. The relevant provisions of the said amending Act of 1962 are these: 11A(1). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any of the other provisions of this Act the Collector shall decide all disputes regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant arising in course of any of the proceedings under this Act. (2). Where a dispute of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) is raised or is pending before the Collector DO proceedings relating to such dispute shall be maintainable or be continued in any civil Court and the decision of the Collector shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (5), be final. It is obvious from the terms of the new Section 11A that it has been enacted expressly with the intent to bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court in a dispute relating to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, and to empower the specific tribunal as provided therein, to decide such disputes finally; it is not a simple change made in the law of procedure alone, but a change which affects the jurisdiction of the civil Court; the retrospective character of the provision is to be found in Sub-section (2) of Section 11A; its retrospective operation is confined only to such a dispute of the class as "is raised or is pending before the Collector", or in other words, the provision made therein that "no proceeding relating to such dispute will be maintainable or be continued in any civil Court" is to apply only to such a dispute as "is raised or is pending before the Collector". 7. This point is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Radha Charan Das Babaji v. Bhima Patra 31 C.L.T. 996, which was followed by a Single Bench in Ghana Majhi v. Raghu Naik S.A. No. 406 of 1963, decided on May 4, 1965. 7. This point is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Radha Charan Das Babaji v. Bhima Patra 31 C.L.T. 996, which was followed by a Single Bench in Ghana Majhi v. Raghu Naik S.A. No. 406 of 1963, decided on May 4, 1965. There is another Single Bench decision on the point in Brundaban Chandra Mohaprabhu v. Koti Budhis and Ors. S.A. No. 562 of 1964, decided on September 5, 1966. The latest decision on the point is another Division Bench decision of this Court in Bhima Padhi v. Venkateswara Swamy Varu and Anr. F.A. No. 24 of 1963, decided on September 27, 1966. It appears that the implications of the earlier Division Bench decision in Radha Charan Das Babaji v. Bhima Patra1, decided on April 20, 1965 as to ouster of jurisdiction were also noted in the said subsequent Division Bench case. 8. It was argued on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants that the jurisdiction of the civil Court having been ousted the suit must be dismissed as not maintainable; it was submitted that the possible inconveniences arising from this view cannot be helped by Court; it was for the Legislature to consider. 9. In my opinion having regard to the application pending before the Collector for determination of the question whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the suit from which this second appeal arises, should be stayed until the final disposal of the application before the O.T.R. Collector; it should not be dismissed. This view is supported by the Division Bench decision in Radha Charan Das Babaji v. Bhima Patra1 (paragraph 11) where it was held- The intention of the legislature in enacting Sub-section (2) of Section 11A seems to be that if a dispute of this character was then pending exclusively in the civil Court, that would not be disturbed thereby, and in that case it will be open to the parties either to get the adjudication done there or to raise it afresh if any of them so likes, before the Collector and thereby to get the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of that matter ousted. But so long as that is not done and the dispute is not raised before the Collector, the civil Court will not be deprived of its jurisdiction over it. But so long as that is not done and the dispute is not raised before the Collector, the civil Court will not be deprived of its jurisdiction over it. (The italicised in the above quotation is mine) What this decision lays down is that the civil Court's jurisdiction in respect of matters other than those raised or pending before the O.T.R. Collector is not ousted; it is in that limited sense that Section 11A does not provides total ouster of civil Court jurisdiction. In Bhima Padhi v. Venkateswara Swamy Varu and Anr., the Division Bench has interpreted the implications of the earlier Division Bench decision in Radha Charan Das Babaji v. Bhima Patra. In substance, there is no real conflict between the decisions. 10. In the ultimate analysis of the legal position in the light of the several decisions of this Court, I agree with the view in Brundaban Chandra Mohaprabhu v. Koti Budhia and Ors., (decided on September 5, 1966). In my opinion the suit should be stayed. 11. In this view of the case the decision of the Courts below is set aside and the suit is stayed. The second appeal is accordingly allowed with the direction for stay of the suit before the trial Court as aforesaid. In the circumstances, parties are to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed