The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to the Family Courts, the nature of orders passed by the Family Court, and the availability of appeal remedies under different provisions of law.

I have heard Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondent on the preliminary objection taken as to the maintainability of this appeal initially filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and then by way of amendment, filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) read with Section 104 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, this appeal is not maintainable before this Court and the appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to proceed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of rejection of plaint, has been interpreted by this Court to be an order which is interlocutory because, it does not decide the rights of the parties finally and vis-a-vis the suit. The reliance has been placed in this regard on the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. Sumit S/o. Narayanprasad Fogla Vs. Sou. Shradha w/o Sumit Fogla, reported in 2015(5) ALL MR 501. So, it is further submitted that the remedy of appeal would have to be found in the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(a) of Civil Procedure Code which is a remedy of appeal against the order passed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. This is however, refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent contending that this particular provision of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be said to be applicable to the order passed by a Family Court, as the one involved here, for the reason that a Family Court is not a Civil Court and that there is a difference between a Civil Court proper and a Civil Court considered to be the Civil Court by deeming fiction of law. He also places reliance upon the cases of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. Reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. Reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221 Para 37 to 39, Jagadguru Annadanishwara Maha Sawaji Vs. V.C. Allipur & Anr. Reported in (2009) 4 SCC 625 Para 8 and 11, Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation reported in (2009) 8 SCC 646 and Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray Vs. Justice B. Lentin & Ors reported in (1988) 4 SCC 419.

3. So far as the remedy of appeal available under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is concerned, I must say that the learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that this remedy is not available for challenging a kind of an order which is sought to be impugned here. This order is about rejection of the plaint holding that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction and it is passed by invoking the powers of the Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The test for determining an order to be an interlocutory has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. C. Shukla Vs. State throu C.B.I. reported in 1980 Supp. SCC 92 by referring to several cases including one of Kuppuswami Rao Vs. King reported in AIR 1949 FC 1 which has been followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Sumit (supra) The test as expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is “........the test of finality was whether the order disposed of the rights of the parties. The finality must be a finality in relation to the suit.” Obviously, an order of rejection of plaint passed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil procedure Code neither finally disposes of the rights of the parties nor suit, rather it implores the parties to assert their rights before a proper forum. So, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that any order which decides the issue of jurisdiction one way or the other is not a final order, but an interlocutory order. The appeal remedy provided under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is about final order and it contains an express bar against an interlocutory order. That remedy, thus is not available to the appellant in the present case.

4. So, the question is as to which reme