By the Court.—Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondents, though the case has been called in revised. In the circumstances, we proceed ex parte to decide the appeal.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has arisen from judgment and decree dated 31.1.2005 passed by Sri Dharam Singh, Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Moradabad in Original Suit No. 617 of 2003.

3. The only point for determination for adjudicating this appeal is whether the Court below, when decided issue regarding jurisdiction holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit, whether could have proceeded to adjudicate other issues on merits and after deciding the same on merits, can pass a judgment and decree of dismissal of suit.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under.

5. Plaintiffs-appellants instituted the aforesaid suit seeking a permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from interfering into possession of plaintiffs in respect to property in dispute, detailed and described in para 1, 2 and 6 of the plaint, on the basis of proceeding of P.A. Case No. 7 of 2001 (Kusum Lata v. Doris) and Execution Case No. 15 of 2001 before the Trial Court. Following 11 issues were formulated:

“(1) Whether the defendant Smt. Doris Herald Meyer executed statement on 29.1.88 in favour of Abdul Haq and Abdul Haq on the basis of the said statement executed sale-deed on 2.8.2003 in respect of the constructions standing thereon and the land of 358.42 sq.M. In favour of plaintiffs, as alleged in the plaint?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are leasee of 1453.60 sq.M. Land through registered lease deed dated 2.8.2003?

(3) Whether the ex parte order passed in petition No. 7 of 2001 of U.P. Act No. 13/72 is illegal and void, which is passed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 being in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 being the heir of Sanjay Goyal and defendants want to evict the plaintiffs in Execution Case No. 15/01 on the basis of the said order, who are bona fide purchasers for the value?

(4) Whether late Chunna had let out the property on 31.5.1920 detailed in para 10 of W.S. to late A.D. Meyer for 10 years for raising constructions thereon, which later on extended on 2.6.1933 upto the year 1943 and it was agreed that after termination of tenancy constructions shall be removed otherwise on the basis of the written statement of Smt. Doris Herald Meyer dated 3.4.1937 and according to the provision of T.P. Act and Section 29/A of U.P. Act 13, 72, lessor/owner shall become the owner of the constructions also?

(5) Whether there is no any compound of Ram Kumar Singhal and Abdul Haq defendant has got unauthorised possession of the land of defendants No. 1 to 3, as alleged in para 11 of the w.s. and the suit is bad for non-joinder of Ram Kumar Singhal and Jamila Khatoon?

(6) Whether there is any power of attorney in favour of Abuld Haq and in the title of suit, Abdul Haq defendant is wrongly shown the power of attorney holder?

(7) Whether the statement in favour of Abdul Haq is not registered nor it bears signatures of Smt. Doris Herald Meyer nor it has any signatures of the witnesses and the seal of the Notary is forged because Government of Switzerland uses Monogram of Notary?

(8) Whether Abdul Haq is not the Proprietor of the Alpex Traders and unauthorised has shown him as proprietor of the Alpex Traders?

(9) Whether the suit is time barred?

(10) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

(11) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?

6. As noted above, Issue No. 10 relates to very jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the aforesaid suit. This issue has been decided by the Court below alongwith Issue No. 3 holding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and proceedings under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) and any or