1. Mr.Nilesh M.Shah, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 and Mr.M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent Nos.2,5,7 and 8.

2. With the consent of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties, Appeal From Order is taken up for final hearing today.

3. In the present Appeal From Order, the appellants herein original plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court No.5, Ahmedabad dtd.16/7/2007 below notice of motion in dismissing the notice of motion mainly on the ground that the City Civil Court would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question in view of secs.7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act.

4. The appellants herein original plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No.1038 of 2004 in City Civil Court at Ahmedabad seeking various reliefs inter-alia for partition of the properties of Joint Hindu Family of the original defendants and for accounts as prayed in para 7 of the plaint. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have taken out notice of motion seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating and/or assigning the movable and immovable suit properties and also seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000=00 per month during pendency of the suit. The defendants filed their reply at Ex.15. The appellants original plaintiffs filed Affidavit-in-rejoinder at Ex.18. That the learned trial court passed ad-interim order directing the defendants to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month to the original plaintiffs from the date of the suit regularly. The defendants resisted the notice of motion mainly on the ground that the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad would not have any jurisdiction in view of sec.7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act and the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court No.5, Ahmedabad by the impugned order dtd.16/7/2007 passed below notice of motion, accepted the objections raised by the defendants and dismissed the said notice of motion by observing that in view of secs.7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad would not have any jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the appellants original plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal From Order.

5. Mr.Amit N. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that the learned trial court has misguided itself on considering the maintenance sought by the plaintiffs in the notice of motion along with the other prayers. It is submitted that the learned trial court has misread and misinterpreted secs.7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act. It is submitted that when the suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the property of the Hindu Undivided Family and for accounts, the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the said dispute would not fall within secs.7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act and therefore it is submitted that the learned Chamber Jude has not decided the notice of motion on merits and therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the trial court for deciding the notice of motion on merits.

6. Mr.M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2,5,7 and 8 has submitted that the plaintiffs have prayed for maintenance and therefore, the trial court has rightly observed and held that in view of secs.7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad is not maintainable. Mr.Gandhi has further submitted that even otherwise the defendants are paying Rs.13,000=00 per month instead of Rs.10,000 per month to the plaintiffs towards maintenance, as the plaintiffs are their family members. Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 has supported the appellants a