- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. Against resolution dated 22-7-1987 a suit, being Civil Suit No. 220 of 1987 was filed by the respondents wherein the impugned order of injunction dated 30-11-1987 was passed. The said order has been challenged on the ground that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to grant injunction in the matter.
(2.) RELYING upon the decision of Division Bench, Omkar Singh v. Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly and others, 1991 (17) ALR 564, it is submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded in such matters. At the same time, in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, by insertion of Section 94, the Civil Court jurisdiction has been specifically barred. Be that at it may but Mr. A D. Saunders, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the permits were granted under 1939 Act, and, therefore, even if renewed cannot continue beyond the period of renewal unless fresh permit is granted. On the other hand, this writ petition and the suit are of the year 1987. Admittedly, during this period the permits had expired according to him, by efflux of time the suit and the writ petition have become infructuous. In the facts and circumstances of the case by no stretch of imagination it can be conceived that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant interim order after insertion of Section 94 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said Act has come into force on 1-7-1989. Five years from the said date have expired in 1994. Even if the permits granted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are renewed and allowed to continue under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same should be subject to Section 94 and by reason whereof the interim order can no more survive on account of express provision contained in Section 94 of the said Act of 1988. At the same time the suit would also become not maintainable because of the said express provision.
(3.) IN that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order, impugned in the present writ petition, is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;