JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This appeal has been filed against judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur dated 19.10.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2005, vide which judgment the learned appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur dated 1.10.2005 in Civil Suit No. 66/1 of 2003. 2. This appeal was admitted on 20.6.2008, on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court are the result of misreading as well as misconstruction of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record?” 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are mentioned here-in-below. 4. Appellant/plaintiff, Soma Devi, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘plaintiff’), filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner by changing nature, digging any part, making any construction leading to the house of the plaintiff and also not to divert rainy water towards the house of the plaintiff existing over land measuring 4-2 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 145, Khata Khatauni No. 261/282 min, situated in village Kandraur/156, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P., which was Abadi Deh land either personally or through their agents, servants and family members. In the alternative, plaintiff prayed for possession by demolishing the construction raised by defendants forcibly over the suit land by blocking the passage of the plaintiff over the land, which was in possession of the plaintiff. 5. The case of the plaintiff was that she was permanent resident of village and post office Kandraur and her husband Ravinder Kumar, defendants and other co-sharers are in possession over the land measuring 4-2 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 145 Khata Khatauni No. 261/282 situated in village Kandraur/156, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, HP. According to her, the residential house and cow-shed of the plaintiff, defendants and other co-sharers are situated over the suit land and there was passage which leads from main road known as ‘Ghumarwin-Bilaspur via Kandraur’ to the house and field of the plaintiff. Defendants are adamant to occupy and block the passage which was being used by her and other village right holders. Defendants had dug the passage on 24.5.2003 and diverted the entire rainy water of their house and land towards her house. Defendants are adamant to occupy and block the passage which was being used by her and other village right holders. Defendants had dug the passage on 24.5.2003 and diverted the entire rainy water of their house and land towards her house. The matter was reported to Gram Panchayat, Kandraur and the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat along with Members visited the spot and directed defendants to stop the nuisance and also restrained them from digging any part and diverting the rainy water towards the house of the plaintiff. Defendants again started digging the path on 20.6.2003 and when plaintiff objected to this, defendants threatened that they will raise construction by occupying the path and dispossess her from the suit land. It was on these bases, the plaintiff filed the suit. 6. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 4. It was the case of defendants, in the written statement, that the averments made in the plaint with regard to passage leading to the house of plaintiff and fields from road known as Ghumarwin-Bilaspur via Kandraur road, was totally false and wrong. As per defendants, they have never dug the passage and in fact, there was no such path. Defendants had not diverted the rainy water towards the house of the plaintiff nor any threatening was ever advanced to her, as alleged by the plaintiff. According to them, the defendants were raising construction over Khasra No. 143 which was adjoining to the suit land and belonging to them. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and material placed on record, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for?....OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? ….OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?.....OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?....OPD. 5. Relief.” 8. The learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the said issues:- “Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : No. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Relief : The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per operative part of the judgment.” 9. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?....OPD. 5. Relief.” 8. The learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the said issues:- “Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : No. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Relief : The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per operative part of the judgment.” 9. The learned Trial Court concluded that on the basis of evidence on record adduced by the parties, it was evident that there was a passage over the suit land which leads to the house and land of the plaintiff and the same was blocked by the defendants. The learned Trial court further held that defendants tried to block the path on couple of occasions and plaintiff was compelled to report the matter to Gram Panchayat. It was further held that even DW-4-Tulsi Ram, Patwari examined on behalf of the defendants had not ruled out the possibility of existence of the passage over the suit land since ‘Kacha’ path over the abadi deh land are not generally recorded in the revenue record and only ‘Pucca’ roads are recorded. Accordingly, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that defendants were blocking the path over the suit land and diverting the rainy water towards the house of the plaintiff. 10. The learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the following manner:- “It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants are restrained permanently from blocking the passage over the suit land that leads to the house and land of the plaintiff and also diverting the rainy water towards the house of the plaintiff in any manner.” 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned trial court, respondents/defendants preferred the appeal before the court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The learned appellate court vide its judgment dated 19.10.2006 allowed the said appeal and decree passed by the learned trial court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 12. The learned appellate court held that the plaintiff was not having any locus to file and maintain the suit against the defendants. As per the learned appellate court the plaintiff had categorically pleaded in para-1 of the plaint that Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. 12. The learned appellate court held that the plaintiff was not having any locus to file and maintain the suit against the defendants. As per the learned appellate court the plaintiff had categorically pleaded in para-1 of the plaint that Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Narain Dass was her husband and her husband, defendants and other cosharers are in possession of the suit land, that is, abadi deh measuring 4-2 bighas. She had further stated in para-11 of the plaint that keeping in view the fact that her husband was serving in Indian Army, the suit was filed by her being his wife. Thus, as per the learned appellate court, it was evident from the plaint that the plaintiff had not claimed any right, title or interest in the suit land nor she had got any title over the suit property. The suit was filed by her in her capacity as wife of Ravinder Kumar. According to the learned appellate court, there was no material on record to suggest that plaintiff had been authorized by Ravinder Kumar, her husband, to file and maintain the suit before the learned trial court. Neither any authorization nor any power of attorney Special or General had been placed on record by the plaintiff in this regard. Accordingly, on these bases, it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no locus to file and maintain the present suit. 13. The learned appellate court thereafter also went to adjudicate upon the merits of the case as to whether their existed a path and whether the same had been blocked by defendants by raising structure, as alleged and whether they are threatening to divert rainy water towards the house of plaintiff and whether defendants were causing interference in the path. This point was also decided against the plaintiff by the learned appellate court while allowing the appeal of the present respondents. The learned appellate court allowed the appeal in following terms:- “In view of my findings on point No.1 above, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted. The impugned Judgment and decree of the trial Court are set-aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The impugned Judgment and decree of the trial Court are set-aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this Judgment be sent back and the appeal file after due completion be consigned to the record room.” 14. Mr. J.R. Poswal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned appellate court erred in allowing the appeal and holding that the plaintiff had no locus to file and maintain the suit. Mr. Poswal submitted that the learned appellate court erred in not appreciating that there was neither any specific issue framed by the learned trial court in this regard, as this issue was never agitated in the written statement by defendants nor in the appeal filed before the learned appellate court, this was one of the grounds. Thus according to Mr. Poswal, the adjudication on this point by the learned appellate court was beyond the scope of the appeal. 15. Mr. Poswal further submitted that even otherwise the conclusion arrived at by the learned appellate court that the plaintiff had no locus to file and maintain the case was totally incorrect and unfounded. According to him, on the basis of averments made in the plaint, plaintiff had locus to file and maintain the suit. Mr. Poswal further argued that even otherwise, the judgment of the learned appellate court was not sustainable in the eyes of law because once the learned appellate court had returned findings to the effect that the plaintiff had no locus to file and maintain the suit, then the learned appellate court could not and should not have had ventured upon to adjudicate the appeal on merit. Accordingly, he submitted that the judgment passed by the learned appellate court was erroneous and liable to be set aside, as it was a result of complete misreading as well as misconstruction of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. 16. Mr. Accordingly, he submitted that the judgment passed by the learned appellate court was erroneous and liable to be set aside, as it was a result of complete misreading as well as misconstruction of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. 16. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the judgment passed by the learned appellate court was a well reasoned judgment and the learned appellate court had rightly held that neither plaintiff had any locus to file and maintain the suit nor she has been able to prove her case of interference on the alleged path. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case carefully. 18. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1126 in which it has been held as under:- “15. ….. x x x x x x There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may, at one’s peril, bring a suit of one’s choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. ……x x x x x x” 19. It is not disputed that Soma Devi is wife of Ravinder Kumar and is resident of VPO Kandraur, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, HP, where the suit property was situated. Whether or not the plaintiff was to succeed on merit is another issue, but the plaintiff had the locus to file and maintain the suit. She has stated in the plaint that the residential houses, cow-shed of plaintiff and defendants and other co-sharers are situated over the suit land and there was passage which leads from main road know as Ghumarwin-Bilaspur via Kandraur to the house and fields of the plaintiff and defendants were adamant to occupy and block the passage being used by the plaintiff and other village right holders. It is not the case of respondents that plaintiff was not residing in her husband’s house in village Kandraur. It is not the case of respondents that plaintiff was not residing in her husband’s house in village Kandraur. Further, in my considered view exercise of a right of passage is not dependent on ownership. 20. It has come on record that the plaintiff was married for the last more than 18 years. Memo of parties as given in the plaint reflects the plaintiff also as resident of VPO Kandraur, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, HP in her capacity as wife of Ravinder Kumar. The suit has not been filed by Ravinder Kumar through Soma Devi nor is it the contention in the plaint that the suit is being filed by Soma Devi on behalf of Ravinder Kumar. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, the learned appellate court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no locus to file any plaint. The findings returned by it to the effect that the plaintiff has not produced on record any power of attorney authorizing her to file the present suit on behalf of Ravinder Kumar, are totally misplaced. 21. Further in the written statement, averments made in para-2 of the plaint have been admitted to be correct, though the factum of existence of path or passage has been denied. In other words, the averments made in the plaint to the effect that residential houses, cow shed of plaintiff, defendants and other co-sharers are situated over the suit land is admitted by the defendants. Therefore, also when the plaintiff was pleading in the plaint that interference was being caused by defendants on the path which was leading to the said property of the plaintiff, in my considered view, she was having locus to file the case and this important aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned appellate court. Therefore, the findings which have been returned by the learned appellate court to the effect that the plaintiff was not having any locus to file the suit are set aside. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents even otherwise has not been able to point out that the suit filed by plaintiff was barred by any statute. When no statute bars the suit, then its maintainability requires no authority of law and every person has an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature at one’s own risk. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents even otherwise has not been able to point out that the suit filed by plaintiff was barred by any statute. When no statute bars the suit, then its maintainability requires no authority of law and every person has an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature at one’s own risk. If the claim is frivolous, then the law will take its own course but until and unless a suit is barred by statute the same cannot be thrown out on the ground of maintainability. 23. It is further evident from the judgment passed by the learned appellate court that though it has decided that the plaintiff had no locus to file the suit, it has also gone to adjudicate upon the merits of the appeal. In my considered view, when the learned appellate court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no locus to file the suit, then it could not have adjudicated upon merits of the case in appeal. 24. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that I have already held above that the findings returned by the learned appellate court to the effect that the plaintiff had no locus to file the suit are incorrect findings, the subsequent findings returned by the learned appellate court need not be gone into and are accordingly set aside. 25. In my considered view the findings on merit returned by the learned appellate court against the plaintiff after first holding that plaintiff had no locus to file the suit is nothing but an attempt to justify the first part of its judgment. 26. Each and every case has got two elements involved in it. These elements are (a) maintainability and (b) justiciability. Before entering into the justiciability, it has to be decided whether the lis is maintainable or not. Thereafter a Court ventures into adjudication of the case on merit which is known as “justiciability”. When Court comes to the conclusion that the lis is not maintainable, then it does not enter into adjudication of the same on merit. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Athmanathaswami Devasthanam Vs. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 338 has held as under:- “13. …….x x x x x When the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Athmanathaswami Devasthanam Vs. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 338 has held as under:- “13. …….x x x x x When the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint.” This very important principle of law has been ignored by the learned appellate court while deciding the appeal under challenge. Though, in the present case, it is not as if the Court held that it had no jurisdiction, however, when the Court concluded that plaintiff had no locus to maintain the suit which in other words means that the suit was not maintainable then the appellate court could not have further adjudicated in the matter on merit. 28. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed with cost and the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate court dated 19.10.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2005 are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned appellate court with direction to decide the same on merit afresh. Keeping in view the fact that the civil suit was filed as far back as in the year 2003, this Court hopes and trusts that the learned appellate court shall decide the appeal on or before 31.12.2016. Both the parties are directed to put appearance before the learned appellate court on 4th July, 2016. The Registry is directed to return the records of the case well before the date fixed.