- (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows : This appeal has been preferred against rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed by a Tribunal constituted under Motor vehicle Act, 1988.
(2.) After hearing Mr. Mahato, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, and after going through provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules framed thereunder, we find that although by virtue of Rule 343 procedure provided in Order 9 is made applicable to Claim Tribunal, but for that reason rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code will not be made applicable by taking aid of Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. It is now a settled position of law that provision of appeal is a creature of statute and under the Motor Vehicles Act, only order of the Claim Tribunal that has been made appealable is the one indicated in Section 173 of the Act. Undisputedly, this appeal is not against an award so as to attract the provision of Section 173 of the Act.
(3.) The law is equally settled that even if by taking aid of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, some procedural part of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to a miscellaneous proceeding by virtue of such provision, the provision of appeal which is a substantive right cannot be made applicable.;