Apropos the contention of the learned senior counsel that the facts are distinguishable, the learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17171 of 1999, dated 10-06-2005. That was a case where a relief of permanent injunction was sought for in the application on the premise that it had been a case of an attempt to commit land grabbing. The larger bench judgment of this Court was sought to be relied upon by the adversary in that case questioning the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal. While adverting to that judgment, it was held in para 34, that it was not a simple case of allegation of attempt to occupy the land and inasmuch as both parties to the earlier proceedings were asserting title as well as possession over the disputed land and as the respondents’ predecessors were also convicted for the offence of criminal trespass and the parties brought all those circumstances on record in the proceedings, the judgment of larger bench, was distinguishable. With due respect, we are afraid that we cannot concur with the finding reached by the learned bench. As discussed hereinabove, with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court that it is the plaint or the application that gives the forum, but not the plea taken inter alia in the written statement or the counter, as the case may be, by the adversary. There has been no gainsaying that the forum which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter cannot make an endeavour to touch upon the merits of the case, inasmuch as any finding given on merits of the case becomes void having been given without the necessary jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, any attempt whatsoever on our part to touch upon the merits becomes illegal and without jurisdiction, since the forum can be decided by going through the specific averments made inter alia in the plaint or application, as the case may be. This clear legal position has been laid down by the Apex Court in Abdulla Bin Ali’s case. Surprisingly, in this case, the pleading has not