Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.D. Saunders, learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
(2.) The petitioner, who is plaintiff, aggrieved by grant of temporary permit on the same route on which he is plying by virtue of a permanent stage carriage permit, challenged the grant of temporary permit to respondents 4 to 8 before the Civil Court by means of a suit No. 130 of 2003 for injunction. In the said suit the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. Initially he was granted temporary injunction but subsequently when the parties put in appearance, the temporary injunction application has been dismissed by the trial court by its order dated 17th May 2003 firstly on the ground because under Section 94 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 civil court is not vested with the power to entertain a suit of the nature of which the present suit is. The trial court has also considered the question of continuation of injunction order on merit and round that three important ingredients - prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not found to have been established by the plaintiff and, therefore, injunction application has been rejected.
(3.) Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which is numbered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2003, Sardar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., which has been decided by the lower appellate court by order dated 13th February 2004 whereby the lower appellate court has found that in view of provisions of Section 94 referred to above of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a suit is cognisable before the Civil Court.;