JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Una, whereby he reversed the findings rendered by the learned trial court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’) filed suit for declaration on the ground that the suit land was jointly owned by him along with respondents-defendants No. 2 and 3. He claimed to be in exclusive possession of the same and had averred that defendant No. 1 had no right, title and interest over the suit land, who otherwise was owner of the adjoining land. He had moved an application before the Settlement Collector seeking corrections of ‘Karukans’ of Aks Shajra which was carried out by the Settlement Officer, but without affording any opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff. This order was questioned as being not tenable in the eyes of law and declaration to this effect was sought along with prayer for permanent injunction. 3. The defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing written statement in which preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, jurisdiction etc. were raised. On merits, it was denied that the suit land was owned by the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and even the exclusive possession of the plaintiff was disputed. It was contended that it was the plaintiff who changed the ‘Karukans’ in connivance with the settlement staff, resultantly area of the land of defendant in khasra No. 626 was decreased. When this fact came to his notice, he moved an application for correction of ‘Karukans’ and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties, Settlement Officer passed the aforesaid order. 4. The following issues came to be framed by the learned trial court: “1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are joint owners and plaintiff is in exclusive possession of suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether mutation No. 198 dated 26.8.97 on the basis of order passed by S.O. Settlement Circle Kangra at Dharamshala dated 27.6.1997 is illegal, null and void as alleged? OPP. 3. If issue No. 1 & 2 are proved in affirmative whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as alleged? OPP. 4. OPP. 2. Whether mutation No. 198 dated 26.8.97 on the basis of order passed by S.O. Settlement Circle Kangra at Dharamshala dated 27.6.1997 is illegal, null and void as alleged? OPP. 3. If issue No. 1 & 2 are proved in affirmative whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file present suit? OPD. 5. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in present form as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action against defendant as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief.” 5. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, suit of the plaintiff was decreed, constraining the defendant to file appeal before the learned first appellate court, who vide his judgment and decree dated 6.5.2014 reversed the findings of the learned trial court by concluding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit of the present nature. 6. It is against this judgment and decree that the appellant has filed the present appeal by invoking Section 100 of the CPC. 7. On 20.4.2005, the appeal came to be admitted, but without framing any substantial questions of law. However, today, with the consent of the parties, appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. “4. Whether upon returning the findings that the court has no jurisdiction, it is right and proper that such court should order the return of plaint to be presented before proper Forum in accordance with provisions of order 7 Rule 10 CPC instead of rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit and where such procedure has not been followed, whether such orders can stand judicial scrutiny?” I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material available on record. 8. I really wonder why learned first appellate court ventured to record findings on merits of the case, after it had come to the conclusion that the civil court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain much less decide the case. 9. The position of law regarding conferment of jurisdiction has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 and the same was summed up in the following manner: “22. 9. The position of law regarding conferment of jurisdiction has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 and the same was summed up in the following manner: “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution. The finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/in-executable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Acquiescence of a party equally should not be permitted to defeat the legislative animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. (Vide: The United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230 ; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 22 ; Natraj Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Navrang Studio & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537 ; Sardar Hasan Siddiqui & Ors. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow & Ors. AIR 1986 All. 132 ; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 1531 ; Union of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96 ; Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Prakash Wanti (Smt.) (Dead) & Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 159 ; U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1373 ; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664 ; Kesar Singh & Ors. v. Sadhu, (1996) 7 SCC 711 ; Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213 and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) (P) Ltd., Kanpur, AIR 2000 SC 2484 ). 23. When a statute gives a right and provides a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act. When an Act creates a right or obligation and enforces the performance thereof in a specified manner, "that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner". 23. When a statute gives a right and provides a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act. When an Act creates a right or obligation and enforces the performance thereof in a specified manner, "that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner". Thus for enforcement of a right/obligation under a statute, the only remedy available to the person aggrieved is to get adjudication of rights under the said Act. (See: Doe d. Rochester (BP) v. Bridges, 109 ER 1001; Barraclough v. Brown, 1897 AC 615; The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors. AIR 1975 SC 2238 and Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. (1990) 1 SCC 193 ). 10. In pure legal theory, ‘ jurisdiction, as meaning ‘power to decide’ or ‘competence to decide’ a cause or subjects can be conferred on a court, tribunal or an authority as is the case only by the Constitution of the country or by a law made by a competent legislature and not by the act or consent of parties. When a court, tribunal or an authority has not been invested with jurisdiction, meaning ‘the power to decide’ or ‘competence to decide’ but still decides a matter, it is outside its jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction and that cannot be cured by the Act or consent of parties. 11. Rubinstein clearly explains this principle neatly in his Treatise ‘jurisdiction and illegality’ in these word: "Want of jurisdiction denotes action taken beyond the sphere allotted to the Tribunal by law and, therefore, outside the area within which the law recognizes a privilege to err. Furthermore, want of jurisdiction is regarded as usurpation of power unwarranted by law. Consequently, it is considered so radical a defect that it cannot be cured by the acquiescence or consent of the parties concerned. Jurisdiction does not originate in the consent of the parties and cannot be re-established, where it is absent, by such consent or acquiescence. Being independent of the parties’ behaviour, want of jurisdiction can be raised by any person wherever the resulting act is relied upon. These symptoms are generally accepted as characterizing want of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction does not originate in the consent of the parties and cannot be re-established, where it is absent, by such consent or acquiescence. Being independent of the parties’ behaviour, want of jurisdiction can be raised by any person wherever the resulting act is relied upon. These symptoms are generally accepted as characterizing want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, as will be seen later, bias cannot be considered as going to jurisdiction since it is a defect which can be waived and which cannot be raised by the person who ‘benefited’ by the alleged bias. Nevertheless, as one would suspect, this rule is not without its exceptions. In certain circumstances, a party may be precluded by his behaviour, from raising an objection to jurisdiction, though, admittedly, such an objection would have nullified the disputed proceedings. The courts have not evolved, with regard to this matter, a general guiding principle. A distinction is sometimes made between total or general want of jurisdiction, which cannot be cured by consent and acquiescence and other jurisdiction defects which can be thus cured. General want of jurisdiction is taken to relate to the subject-matter over which the tribunal has jurisdiction, but, this distinction has never been clearly formulated." 12. A case of inherent want of jurisdiction can be set up at any stage of the proceedings. But, an irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction cannot be set up at any and every stage of the proceedings. 13. Therefore, once the learned lower appellate court had come to the conclusion that it lacked inherent jurisdiction, then the only course open to it was to have returned the plaint to be presented before the proper Forum in accordance with the provisions of order 7 Rule 10 CPC and in no event could the suit have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction that too after venturing to go into the merits of the same. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. Learned Trial court is directed to return the plaint to be presented before proper Forum. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. Learned Trial court is directed to return the plaint to be presented before proper Forum. It is made clear that in case the plaint is presented before the proper Forum-Authority within a period of 30 days, then the entire period spent in this litigation will not come in the way of the appellant and the same would be set off and condoned by the authority by exercising its powers under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. With these observations, appeal is allowed, as aforesaid, leaving the parties to bear their costs.