PAYAL SANCHETI Vs. HARSHVARDHAN SANCHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, against the order of the Family Court Jodhpur dt. 22. 6. 2007, dismissing the suit for injunction, under O. 7 Rule 11 C. P. C. The appellants are the wife, and daughter of the respondent.

(2.) THE appeal was filed time barred. THEn application under Section 5 was filed. Vide order dt. 25. 2. 2008 the delay was condoned. THEn vide order dt. 11. 3. 2008 it was directed, that the appeal be heard even without calling for the record, as the Family Court has decided the question of jurisdiction, which is a pure question of law, and the matter was posted for final disposal at admission stage itself. THEreafter when the matter came up on 17. 3. 2008, one of the Hon'ble Members of the Bench, which passed the earlier order, made an exception in the matter, then the matter came up before another Bench on 26. 3. 2008, and it was found, that since the suit has been dismissed under O. 7 Rule 11, for want of jurisdiction, for deciding question of jurisdiction, reading of plaint is the first requirement, and therefore despite order dt. 11. 3. 2008 record was ordered to be requisitioned, which was accordingly received. THEn, the matter was heard for final disposal on 23. 7. 2008, and arguments were concluded on 25. 7. 2008.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the various case law, cited on either side, as well as the record. At the outset learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the plaintiffs' claim is not under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, rather their claim is covered by Explanation (c) to Section 7 (1 ).