1. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision questioning order dated 21.11.2006 of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu whereby his Application seeking injunctive directions against the respondents was dismissed, as also order dated 30.08.2007 of First Additional District Judge, Jammu whereby his Appeal against the trial Court's order was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Both the trial Court as also the appellate Court have refused to issue injunctive directions inter alia influenced by their prima facie view that the Courts at Jammu may not have jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's Suit, for, the immovable properly in regard whereto the questioned documents were executed, was situated in Ganderbal-Kashmir. 4. Where a Court, seized of a lis, is of the view, may be prima facie, that the lis was not cognizable by it, for one, or other reasons, it would not be appropriate for it to consider issuance or otherwise of injunctive directions sought for by the suitor, proceeding on the premise that the lis may not be cognizable by it, in that, such course was likely to result in failure of justice. The proper course in such circumstances would be to decide first the issue of jurisdiction, if it could be so decided, on what was contained in the plaint, rather than dwelling on the issue of issuance or otherwise of injunctive directions sought for by the suitor, proceeding on the premise that the court may not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis and it is only after it finds to have jurisdiction in the matter that consideration on issuance or otherwise of injunctive directions be warranted. 5. Both the Courts below have not, however, followed the required course in deciding first the issue of jurisdiction, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, could well be decided, on the basis of what is contained in the petitioner's Plaint and documents relied upon. 6. The course adopted by the two Courts in dealing with the petitioner's Applications on merits influenced by the fact that the Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the lis, without first conclusively deciding the issue of jurisdiction on merits, may not, therefore, be justified. 7. 6. The course adopted by the two Courts in dealing with the petitioner's Applications on merits influenced by the fact that the Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the lis, without first conclusively deciding the issue of jurisdiction on merits, may not, therefore, be justified. 7. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, disposed of by providing that the Trial Court of learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu shall hear the parties first on the issue as to whether the petitioner's Suit was maintainable in courts at Jammu, when the documents questioned therein pertain to the property, situated at Ganderbal, in the light of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In case the Suit was held non-maintainable, requisite orders be passed as warranted under law, And should the court find that the Suit was maintainable, it is only in that event, that the petitioner's Application for issuance of injunctive directions, may warrant consideration afresh, on its merit. 8. Order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the trial Court of learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu and order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the Appellate Court are, accordingly, set aside. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu on October 30, 2012 to address the Court on the issue as to whether or not it had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's Suit.