JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Both these Regular Second Appeals are being decided by a common judgment as these appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 58-CA/13 of 2003 dated 03.06.2004. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals are that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs (appellants in RSA No. 397 of 2004) against the defendants (appellants in RSA No. 396 of 2004) for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the land bearing khata khatauni No. 48/78, khasra No. 7, measuring 8 bighas 19 biswas and khasra No. 258/106 measuring 2 bighas 15 biswa situated in mouja Bherewala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur (HP) and the auction of the suit land dated 31.12.1987 in the execution petition No. 6/10 of 87 and the sale certificate on the basis of said sale in favour of defendant No. 1 of the suit land is illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and the mutation No. 638 dated 19.12.1992 attested in favour of defendant No. 1 on the basis of aforesaid sale certificate was also illegal and void and the defendant No. 1 had no right, title or interest in the suit, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land herself, through her servants or agents in any manner with costs of the suit, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. As per the plaintiffs, their father Narain Singth was owner in possession of the suit land and plaintiffs received a letter dated 01.12.1990 from defendant No. 2 from which they came to know that their father had taken a loan from defendant No. 2 Bank. For recovery of loan, defendant No. 2 filed recovery suit No. 93/1 of 1979 and obtained an ex parte decree on 12.01.1982. Narain Singh died on 02.02.1983. Defendant No. 2 filed execution petition No. 43/10 of 1984/6/10 of 1987 titled SBI v. Narain Singh etc., in which plaintiffs were not served nor they came to know about the pendency of the said execution petition. Narain Singh died on 02.02.1983. Defendant No. 2 filed execution petition No. 43/10 of 1984/6/10 of 1987 titled SBI v. Narain Singh etc., in which plaintiffs were not served nor they came to know about the pendency of the said execution petition. As per plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 was wife of plaintiff No. 2 and was residing with her brother Shri S.S. Gill, Advocate, because of strained relations between husband and wife. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that Shri S.S. Gill and defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendant No. 2 obtained an ex parte decree against late Narain Singh and in order to transfer the suit land in the name of defendant No. 1 in connivance with the Bailiff of the Court, secretly showed public auction of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1, whereas no such auction in fact took place on 31.12.1987 nor any person participated in the same. Further, as per the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 did not deposit 25% of auction amount/purchase money with the Bailiff, who conducted the auction immediately after declaring her the purchaser which was mandatory under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84 C.P.C. On these basis, it was contended by the plaintiffs that the auction sale in favour of defendant No. 1 was null and void. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 of the suit land was collusive, fraudulent, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. As per plaintiffs execution petition No. 6/10 of 1987 came for hearing before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Paonta Sahib on 08.01.1988 on which date the said Court dismissed the execution petition as fully satisfied but did not confirm the sale dated 31.12.1987. Learned Court thereafter issued sale certificate in favour of defendant No. 1 without confirming the same which was illegal. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that said certificate did not confer any title upon defendant No. 1 and she had no right, title or interest over the suit land and mutation No. 638 dated 19.12.1992 attested on the basis of said sale certificate in favour of defendant No. 1 was illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. On these basis, suit was filed by the plaintiffs. 3. On these basis, suit was filed by the plaintiffs. 3. The suit so filed by the plaintiffs was contested by defendant No. 1, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. and the filing of the suit was specifically barred under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 92 (3) of C.P.C. 4. Defendant No. 1 besides contesting the suit on maintainability, denied the case of the plaintiffs as was set up by the plaintiffs even on merit. As per defendant No. 1 filing of the suit by the Bank against Narain Singh was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs and they had information and due notice of the proceedings of the execution petition as they were duly served by the orders of the Court in the said proceedings. It was further contended by defendant No. 1 that the suit land was publicly auctioned only after the refusal of the plaintiffs to pay the loan amount and public auction of the suit land was conducted in their presence. It was further mentioned by defendant No. 1 that after Narain Singh defaulted in the payment of loan, defendant No. 2 called upon Narain Singh and the guarantors to make the payment. Narain Singh executed revival letter i.e. acknowledgment of the liability on 12.10.1978 and similarly, Ujagar Singh, Kanshi Ram and Arjun Singh also executed the documents to repay the amount. It was only on failure of Narain Singh to pay the loan amount, that Suit No. 93 of 1979 was instituted by defendant No. 2 on 19.09.1979 which was decreed against Narain Singh, Ujagar Singh and others on 12.01.1982. It was mentioned in the written statement that summons of the said suit issued by learned Senior Sub Judge were served upon Ujagar Singh on 15.10.1979 along with Arjun Singh and on Narain Singh on 23.10.1979. However, as they did not put in appearance before the learned Court, accordingly they were proceeded ex parte and suit was decreed on 12.01.1982. It was mentioned in the written statement that summons of the said suit issued by learned Senior Sub Judge were served upon Ujagar Singh on 15.10.1979 along with Arjun Singh and on Narain Singh on 23.10.1979. However, as they did not put in appearance before the learned Court, accordingly they were proceeded ex parte and suit was decreed on 12.01.1982. It was further mentioned in the written statement by defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 2 filed execution petition in Suit No. 93 of 1979 and Ujagar Singh was served on 14.01.1987 and proceeded ex parte and as judgment debtor Narain Singh died, accordingly, an application was moved by defendant No. 2 to implead his legal representatives in the execution petition which was allowed by the learned Court and the plaintiffs were duly served for 25.08.1987, however, they deliberately absented themselves from appearance in the Court and in these circumstances, learned trial Court had no other alternative to proceed them ex parte. 5. The suit was also contested by defendant No. 2. It was categorically stated by defendant No. 2 in the written statement that in the execution petition plaintiffs were duly served but they intentionally did not appear. It was also contended by defendant No. 2 that the plaintiffs in fact had knowledge with regard to mutation as well as the suit having been decreed in favour of the Bank. It was further the case of defendant No. 2 that the auction was conducted by the Bailiff as per law. 6. Accordingly, on these basis, claim filed by the plaintiffs in the suit was contested by the defendants. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the judgment & decree passed in civil suit No. 93/1 of 79 titled SBI v. Narain Singh is collusive as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs were not served in the execution petition No. 43/10 of 1984 as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the defendant No. 1, in connivance with the bailiff of the court secretly showed the public auction of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 as alleged, if so, its effect ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged ? OPP 5. OPP 3. Whether the defendant No. 1, in connivance with the bailiff of the court secretly showed the public auction of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 as alleged, if so, its effect ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged ? OPP 5. Whether the auction sale of suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 is collusive, fraudulent and illegal & is not binding on the plaintiffs as alleged ? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiffs were not having the knowledge of the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit No. 93/1 of 79 as alleged, if so, its effect ? OPP 7. Whether the auction sale having not been confirmed by the Court and the consequent sale certificate issued qua the suit land is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, as alleged ? OPP 8. Whether mutation No. 638 dated 19-12-92 is illegal and void, as alleged ? OPP 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged ? OPD 1 & 2 10. Whether the suit is barred by Order 21, Rule 92 (3) CPC, as alleged ? OPD 1 11. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged ? OPD 1 & 2 12. Whether the plaintiffs are guilty of suppression and have levelled false allegations to their knowledge against the defendant No. 1 and others as alleged ? OPD-1 13. Whether the defendant No. 1 is entitled for special costs u/s 35-A, CPC, as alleged ?...OPD 1 & 2 14. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action as alleged ? OPD 1 & 2 15. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the suit as alleged ? OPD 1 & 2 16. Whether the suit is not properly valued as alleged ? OPD 2 8. On the basis of the evidence led by the respective parties, learned trial Court returned the following findings to the issues so framed :- Issue No.1 No Issue No.2 No Issue No.3 No Issue No.4 No Issue No.5 No Issue No.6 No Issue No.7 No Issue No.8 No Issue No.9 Yes Issue No.10 Yes Issue No.11 Yes Issue No.12 No Issue No.13 No Issue No.14 No Issue No.15 No Issue No.16 Not pressed. Relief : Suit dismissed as per operative part of judgment. 9. Relief : Suit dismissed as per operative part of judgment. 9. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by returning the following findings :- (a) Suit filed by defendant No. 2 against Narain Singh was not collusive with defendant No. 1. (b) It stood proved on record that the plaintiffs were duly served in the execution petition filed by defendant No. 2 while executing the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 93/1 of 1979. (c) Plaintiffs could not establish that any secret sale was effected during the course of execution of decree as far as the suit property was concerned. (d) Valid procedure was followed by the Court as prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure while by conducting the public auction of the suit property which was duly conducted by way of public auction by the Bailiff and several persons had participated in the said public auction and had given different bids in which the bid of defendant No. 1 was the highest which was accordingly accepted and suit property was sold in favour of defendant No.1 in public auction. (e) Before issuance of sale certificate, Executing Court was fully satisfied about the genuineness of the sale. (f) There was no violation of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (g) Executing Court had not committed any irregularity in any manner whatsoever and order of confirmation of sale may be implied and no express order of confirmation of sale was necessary as no prejudice was caused to the judgment debtors. (h) Mutation sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 did not suffer from any illegality since defendant No. 1 had become owner in possession of the suit land under law by purchasing the same in public auction. (i) Suit in its present form was not maintainable being barred by the provisions of Order 21, Rule 92 (3) C.P.C. as well as Section 47 C.P.C. as the remedy available to the plaintiffs to assail the Court auction was by filing objection under Section 47 C.P.C. before Executing Court. (i) Suit in its present form was not maintainable being barred by the provisions of Order 21, Rule 92 (3) C.P.C. as well as Section 47 C.P.C. as the remedy available to the plaintiffs to assail the Court auction was by filing objection under Section 47 C.P.C. before Executing Court. (j) Suit filed by the plaintiffs was time barred as relevant final order was passed by Executing Court on 08.01.1988 and the same could not have been challenged by filing a suit after a gap of eight years in view of the fact that the order passed by Executing Court was not void for want of jurisdiction nor any objections were filed. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, plaintiffs filed an appeal. 11. Learned Appellate Court framed the following points for determination :- 1. Whether the auction sale dated 31-12-1987 (Ext. PW1/G) in execution petition No. 43/10 of 1984/6/10 of 1987 and the sale certificate (Ext. PW1/E) as well as mutation No. 638 (Ext. PW1/D) are null and void and, as such, the findings of the learned trial Court on issues No. 1 to 8 are erroneous and are liable to be reversed ? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable and the findings of the learned trial Court to the contrary, on issues No. 9 and 10, are erroneous and liable to be reversed ? 3. Whether the suit is within limitation and the findings of the learned trial Court to the contrary, on issue No. 11, are erroneous and are liable to be reversed ? 4. Final Order. 12. Learned Appellate Court returned the following findings on the points so framed by it :- Point No. 1: Yes, decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Decided accordingly. Point No. 3: Yes. Final Order : The appeal is partly allowed, per operative part of the judgment. 13. Accordingly, learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the following terms :- "In view of my findings on points No. 2 and 3 above, the appeal is partly allowed for the relief of permanent injunction only. With the result, the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant No. 1 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land till the plaintiffs are evicted in due course of law is decreed. With the result, the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant No. 1 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land till the plaintiffs are evicted in due course of law is decreed. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dated 30-6-2003, stand modified to this extent. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn-up accordingly. File be completed and consigned to the record room. Lower Court's record be returned with a copy of this judgment." 14. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by learned Appellate Court, both plaintiffs as well as defendants have filed these appeals. RSA No. 396 of 2004 has been filed by the defendants and RSA No. 397 of 2004 has been filed by the plaintiffs. 15. RSA No. 396 of 2004 was admitted on 23.03.2006 on the following substantial questions of law :- "(1) Whether the first appellate Court erred in granting the injunction to the plaintiffs-respondents after holding that the suit was not maintainable ? (2) When the first appellate Court was of the view that suit was not maintainable, could the first appellate Court have proceeded to give a finding that the same was illegal ?" 16. RSA No. 397 of 2004 was admitted on 23.03.2006 on the following substantial question of law :- "(1) Whether the first appellate Court erred in holding that suit for declaration was not maintainable, in view of the provisions of Section 47 and Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?" 17. I will be dealing with all these substantial questions of law together. 18. Mr. K.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant in RSA No. 396 of 2004 argued that the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court was perverse and not sustainable in law because when learned Appellate Court concluded, and rightly so, that Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure creates a block in the way of plaintiffs to have had instituted a civil suit then learned Appellate Court erred in returning its findings on the point as to whether auction sale dated 31.12.1987, sale certificate as well as mutation No. 638 were null and void or not. Mr. Mr. Kanwar argued that the issue raised by the plaintiffs in the plaint was barred for the purposes of adjudication by way of civil suit in view of the specific provisions of Section 47 C.P.C. and Order 21, Rule 92 (3) C.P.C. He further argued that remedy if any to challenge the auction before the plaintiffs was under the provisions of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code which remedy admittedly was not exhausted by the plaintiffs. Mr. Kanwar further argued that the factum of civil suit being barred by the provisions of Section 47 of C.P.C. was in fact concurrently decided against the plaintiffs by both the Courts below. In this background, according to Mr. Kanwar, once Civil Court was not having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue which was raised by the plaintiffs in the civil suit, learned Appellate erred in returning the findings on the merits of the case with regard to the validity of the auction sale dated 31.12.1987 while it was simultaneously held by learned Appellate Court that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. Accordingly, on these grounds, it was urged by Mr. Kanwar that the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court to this effect that auction sale dated 31.12.1987, sale certificate as well as mutation No. 638 were null and void, were perverse and liable to be set aside. Mr. Kanwar further argued that once the Civil Court was not having any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case, learned Appellate Court further erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs to the extent that defendant No. 1 was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land till the plaintiffs were evicted in due course of law. Accordingly, on these basis, he prayed that the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court to this extent be set aside. 19. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, for respondent No. 4 submitted that there was no illegality in the auction sale which was carried out on 31.12.1987 and he also prayed that there was merit in the contention raised by appellant/defendant No. 1. 20. Mr. 19. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, for respondent No. 4 submitted that there was no illegality in the auction sale which was carried out on 31.12.1987 and he also prayed that there was merit in the contention raised by appellant/defendant No. 1. 20. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that while there was no merit in the appeal filed by defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court, however, according to him, once learned Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the auction sale dated 31.12.1987, sale certificate as well as mutation No. 638 were null and void, thereafter, learned Appellate Court should have had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in totality and as per him, learned Appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was hit by the provisions of Section 47 C.P.C. Accordingly, he argued that while appeal filed by defendant No. 1 against the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court be dismissed, the appeal of the plaintiffs be allowed and judgment passed by learned Appellate Court to the extent that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable, be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed as prayed for. 21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgments passed by learned Appellate Court and learned trial Court. 22. A perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs demonstrates that the plaintiffs had approached the Civil Court praying for setting aside auction of suit land dated 31.12.1987 in execution petition No. 43/10 of 1984/6/10 of 1987 and sale certificate issued on the basis of said sale in favour of defendant No. 1 as well as against mutation No. 638 dated 19.12.1992 attested in favour of defendant No. 1 on the basis of aforesaid sale certificate. Section 47 C.P.C. envisages as under :- "47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree. (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree. (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. [***] (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. [Explanation I. For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. Explanation II. (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and (b) All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.]" 23. Plaintiffs who filed the civil suit admittedly are legal heirs of late Narain Singh against whom decree was passed in Civil Suit No. 93/1 of 1979 and in the execution of which decree, auction sale dated 31.12.1987 took place. It is a matter of record that Narain Singh expired on 02.02.1983 and the plaintiffs were impleaded in execution petition as judgment debtors and were duly served but did not appear in the Court even after service and were thereafter proceeded against ex parte. 24. Admittedly, no application to set aside the sale either on the ground of irregularity or on the ground of fraud was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. before learned Executing Court. There is no plausible explanation given by the plaintiffs as to why no such application was filed especially when it stands proved on record that they were duly impleaded as judgment debtors in place of Narain Singh in the execution petition and were also served in the same though they chose not to put in appearance before learned Executing Court. There is no plausible explanation given by the plaintiffs as to why no such application was filed especially when it stands proved on record that they were duly impleaded as judgment debtors in place of Narain Singh in the execution petition and were also served in the same though they chose not to put in appearance before learned Executing Court. It has also come on record that the plaintiffs was aware of the auction which was conducted by the Court orders and the same took place in their presence. 25. Therefore, in my considered view, in the light of the provisions of Section 47 C.P.C. as well as Rule 90 Order 21 C.P.C. and the remedy if any available to the plaintiffs for setting aside the sale on the grounds of irregularity or fraud was by way of filing application under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. and for the said purpose, a civil suit could not have been filed. 26. In fact, a perusal of the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court also demonstrates that while deciding Point No. 2 it was held by learned Appellate Court. and rightly so, that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not for seeking a relief of declaration challenging the decree in execution of which the suit property was put to auction. However, while learned Appellate Court rightly concluded that the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable and was hit by the provisions of Section 47 C.P.C. it erred in adjudicating on the issue as to whether auction sale dated 31.12.1987 and sale certificate Ext. PW1/E as well as mutation No. 638 which was entered on the basis of sale certificate were null and void or not. PW1/E as well as mutation No. 638 which was entered on the basis of sale certificate were null and void or not. This is for the reason that whether or not auction sale dated 31.12.1987 was null and void, was to be decided by the Executing Court itself as prescribed under Section 47 C.P.C. and as per the procedure contemplated under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. Learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that once it was not having the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue raised by the plaintiffs in the civil suit then it could not have ventured to decide any of the issues which had been raised by the plaintiffs in the said civil suit on merit which otherwise were to be decided as per the provisions of Section 47 C.P.C. and Order 21, Rule 90 of the same. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court to the effect that the auction sale deed dated 31.12.1997 Ext. PW1/G in execution petition No. 43/10 of 1984/6/10 of 1987 and sale certificate Ext. PW1/E as well as mutation No. 638 Ext. PW1/D are null and void, are perverse, not sustainable in law being beyond jurisdiction and are accordingly set aside. 27. There is no merit in the arguments of Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that once learned Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the auction sale dated 31.12.1987 and sale certificate issued subsequently as well as mutation No. 638 as entered subsequently, were null and void, learned Appellate Court should have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in totality. This is for the reason that I have already held above that the findings returned by learned Appellate Court to the effect that the auction sale dated 31.12.1987 Ext. PW1/G and sale certificate Ext. PW1/E as well as mutation No. 638 Ext. PW1/D were null and void, are perverse findings. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Sudhenu Narain Deb v. Mrs. Renuka Biswas and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 385, has held that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed and their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are required to be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. 29. Renuka Biswas and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 385, has held that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed and their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are required to be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. 29. In Jaunda Ram v. Dola Ram and others, AIR 1995 Himachal Pradesh 123, this Court has also held that question which could have been considered by raising objections under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be raised by way of a separate civil suit. 30. As far as the relief which has been granted by learned Appellate Court to the plaintiffs to the extent that the plaintiffs should not be dispossessed from the suit property except in accordance with law is concerned, in my considered view, learned Appellate Court should have had restrained from granting this relief in favour of the plaintiffs keeping in view the fact that neither any issue in this regard was framed for adjudication before learned trial Court nor learned Appellate Court should have had granted any relief to the plaintiffs once it had come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed to this effect by learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 1 is set aside. 31. 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. 32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. 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. 32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. 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 returning the findings on merit after holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the civil suit. 33. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 34. In view of above discussion, RSA No. 397 of 2004 is dismissed and RSA No. 396 of 2004 is allowed. Findings returned by learned Appellate Court to the effect that the auction sale dated 31.12.1987 Ext. PW1/G in execution petition No. 43/10 of 1984/6/10 of 1987 and sale certificate Ext. PW1/E as well as mutation No. 638 PW1/D are null and void, are set aside so also the decree passed by learned Appellate Court for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 1. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in both the appeals, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, in both the appeals, also stands disposed of.