JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The appellant/plaintiff has instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as "RSA") under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, assailing the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below. The appeal is primarily founded on the contention that the findings recorded by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar and the learned Additional District Judge(I), Rohtak, are contrary to law, founded upon a manifest misappreciation of evidence, and have occasioned substantial prejudice to the appellant, thereby warranting the intervention of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the said provision.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience in the discussion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants, corresponding to their respective status before the learned Trial Court. The salient and material facts forming the foundation of the present proceedings, which are essential for an informed adjudication of the issues, are briefly narrated as follows:-

"The plaintiff instituted the present suit for permanent injunction, asserting that he is the lawful owner in possession of the property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The suit land devolved upon him through inheritance and came into his exclusive possession pursuant to a partition with his brothers. It is stated that the plaintiff has been utilizing the land for storing fodder and placing kuraries. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with defendant No. 3, have allegedly attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession despite repeated requests to refrain, thereby compelling the plaintiff to institute the present proceedings."

3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statements. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 denied the plaintiff's claim of ownership and possession, asserting that the suit land, along with adjoining property, forms part of the Shamlat Deh used for common village purposes. They further contended that construction of a Shiv Mandir and other public structures was underway and that the plaintiff never possessed the land. Objections were also raised that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, the suit was barred by res judicata, suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties, and that the plaintiff had no locus standi. Defendant No. 3, in his separate written statement, reiterated that the land was Shamlat Deh and that the suit was barred by res judicata.

4. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and the rival contentions, the Court has framed the following issues for determination, so as to ensure a focused, comprehensive, and effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties:-

1. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy involved as alleged ?OPD.

2. Relief

5. The parties were afforded ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and defense. Upon the conclusion of evidence and after hearing learned counsel at length, the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar having carefully considered the pleadings, material on record, and submissions advanced, dismissed the suit and observed that "in view of the finding on the preliminary issue, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter; accordingly, the plaint is rejected with parties left to bear their own costs." Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, an appeal was filed before the learned Additional District Judge(I), Rohtak , which was also dismissed by observing that "the judgment cited by learned counsel for the plaintiff in Smt. Sheela Adhikari (supra) is inapplicable, as it concerns territorial jurisdiction, whereas the present matter pertains to the civil court's competence, which is expressly barred under Section 13(a)(1) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed, with parties left to bear their own costs."

6. The appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the c