Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Plaintiffs Basakhi Ram and Shiv Ram had collectively filed a suit for permanent injunction against Suresh Kumar Sarpanch and others that the defendant be restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the actual physical and peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiffs by constructing a gali through the sehan of the property of the plaintiffs as described in the plaint. It was contended that the defendants had no legal right as no street is there in front of the house of the plaintiffs. They requested the defendants to desist from such illegal construction but of no consequence. Suit was contested by the defendants who claimed that the portion of the property was gali shreaam which vests in Gram Panchayat and they had also passed a resolution on 30.5.1994 for the construction of the gali in question to be pucca one.

2. Alongwith the suit the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an interim injunction to the above effect. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and relying upon various judgments passed the following order:-

"......therefore, the applicant Hans Raj is also a necessary party is allowed and both the parties till final decision of their suit by this Court are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the existing position of the property in dispute. Hence the injunction application is accordingly disposed of."

3. The defendants in the suit had preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, who vide his judgment and order dated 17.4.1997 set aside the impugned order holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the suit was hit by Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulations Act, 1961 as amended and applicable to Haryana. Aggrieved from this order the present revision has been preferred by Bakshish Ram and another.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that both the Courts below have come to concurrent prima facie view that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in question which is abadi deh and the plaintiff has not prayed for any declaration which would be hit by the provisions of Section 13 of the aforesaid Act. According to the learned counsel the judgment of the First Appellate court suffers from error of jurisdiction and the judgment of the learned trial Court should be upheld.

5. There is hardly much dispute with regard to the facts giving rise to the present proceedings. The learned trial Court specifically noticed in its judgment" Admittedly, the house in dispute is within the abadi deh of the village. Abadi deh is not shamlat deh hence the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter in dispute between, the parties". On this finding the learned first Appellate Court observed that the claim of the plaintiffs that property is part of their house while defendants claim it to be a public street and even abadi deh would be covered under the definition of shamlat Under Section 2(g)(1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, and consequently hit by bar Under Section 13 of the Act. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised in the present case it is necessary to examine the expression shamlat deh. Under Section 2(g)(5) of the Act, this expression has been understood of vide magnitude and stated to include the land in any village described as banjar qadim used for the common purpose of the villagers according to revenue records. The judgments of the learned courts below do not make a reference to any revenue record which describes the land in question and that it has been a public street which is used for the common use of the villagers. The plaintiff in the suit made a specific averments that the land in question has been a part of his house (angan) for the last number of years and is being used by none except by the plaintiffs. At the initial stage of