JUDGMENT :

ABDUL MOIN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-10, Lucknow by which opportunity for filing of written statement by the petitioner has been closed.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Ram Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India would not be maintainable inasmuch as the order challenged is an order passed by the learned Family Court dated 23.02.2021 whereby the right of the petitioner to file a written statement has been closed. He contends that taking into consideration Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1984’) the order impugned has got the trappings of a final order as such, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing of an appeal and consequently, the petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on a full bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Bala Srivastava vs. Jai Prakash Srivastava, 2005 (23) LCD 1 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Yogesh Arora vs. Smt. Jennette Yogish Arora, (2018) 9 ADJ 379.

4. It is argued that the Full Bench of this Court has set forth as to what order would have the trappings of a final order and accordingly, considering the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench and the order impugned having the trappings of the final order, the petitioner has a remedy of filing of an appeal against the said order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the right of filing of written statement has been closed by means of the impugned order and consequently, the same would not fall within the ambit of having the trapping of a final order and as such, the instant petition would not be maintainable.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what emerges is that the full bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Bala Srivastava (supra) has held as under:

“19. Interpreting the word “judgment” appearing in clause 15 of Letters Patent “Bombay” in Shah Babu Lal Khimji vs. Jayabein Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786, their lordships of the Apex Court held that those orders which decided matters of moment or which affected vital and valuable rights of the party or which tended to work serious injustice to the party concerned, fell within he expression “judgment” appearing in relevant clause of Letters Patent. Their lordships said that there could be following three kinds of judgments:

“1. A final Judgment: A judgment which decides all the questions or issues in controversy so far as the trial Judge is concerned and leaves, nothing else to be decided. This would mean that by virtue of the judgment, the suit or action brought by the plaintiff is dismissed or decreed in part or in full. Such an order passed by the trial Judge indisputably and unquestionably is a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent and even amounts to a decree so that an appeal would lie from such a judgment to a Division Bench.

2. A preliminary judgment: this kind of a judgment may take two forms (a) where the trial Judge by an order dismisses the suit without going into the merits of the suit but only on a preliminary objection raised by the defendant or the party opposing on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. Here also, as the suit is finally decided one way or the other, the order passed by the trial Judge would be a judgment finally deciding the cause so far as the trial Judge is concerned and, therefore, appealable to the larger Bench, (b) Another shape which a preliminary judgment may take is that where the trial Judge passes an order after hearing the preliminary objections raised by the defendant relating to maintainability of the suit, e.