1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the District Judge-II, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2000 whereby appeal of the present respondent was allowed and judgment & decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit was set aside.

2. Plaintiff (present respondent) filed RCS No. 829 of 1997 before the Civil Judge, SD, Akola claiming following reliefs:

“(1) Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from not registering the vehicle of plaintiff permanently.

(2) It may kindly be declared that the act of the defendants in not registering the vehicle as a transport vehicle is an injustice upon the plaintiff and therefore, direction may kindly be issued to register the vehicle as transport-vehicle forthwith.

(3) Compensation may kindly be awarded to plaintiff and same be saddled on both the defendants jointly and severally.

(4) ....

(5) .....”

3. Plaintiff was desirous to purchase Mini-Door three-wheeler of Bajaj make and he approached District Industries Centre, Akola for loan on 11.2.1997. DIC recommended grant of loan to the tune of Rs. 1,44,875/- in favour of plaintiff. Vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff through Dealer Khandelwal Automobiles, Akola on 28.10.1997. Plaintiff then on 29.10.1997 approached Regional Transport Office. However, appellant/defendant no. 1 refused to register the vehicle as a transport vehicle on the ground that plaintiff had approached after expiry of 180 days. According to plaintiff, he was not at all responsible for delay. He put the blame on District Industries Centre for delay. Even his fresh application was not accepted by the Regional Transport Office. He alleged that for want of registration of vehicle as a transport vehicle, he could not ply the vehicle for business purposes; vehicle was stationary and was even dashed by one truck due to which he sustained damages. He was required to pay instalment of Rs. 110/- per day and he loss income of Rs. 200/- per day from the vehicle. Plaintiff thus filed suit claiming the reliefs as stated above.

4. Present appellants (original defendants) opposed suit by denying all adverse allegations and mainly on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the order of refusal could have been challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.

5. Learned trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to make necessary compliances and dismissed the suit also on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit.

6. Plaintiff Yeshwant preferred Regular Civil Appeal (being RCA No. 431 of 2000). Learned 1st appellate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed suit of plaintiff. Learned 1st appellate Court held that plaintiff was entitled to registration of vehicle as a transport vehicle and that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit.

7. Present appeal was admitted on 10th September 2009 on the following substantial question of law –

“Whether the first appellate court fell in error in holding that the vehicle can be produced for registration even beyond period of 180 days and it can be still registered under Rule No. 73 of Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules?”

8. My attention has been invited to Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 regarding bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suit regarding grant of permit. Section 94 of the Act reads as under:

“94. Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts. - No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to the grant of a permit under this Act, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the duly constituted authorities under this Act with regard to the grant of a permit, shall be entertained by any Civil Court.”

The provision would thus indicate that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit relating to grant of a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act and also that no