( 1 ) THE short question that arises for determination in this Revision Application is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain an action instituted by a plaintiff who has not suffered bodily injury as a result of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle but whose property is damaged as a result of the accident. The facts giving rise to the Revision Application are few and may be briefly stated as follows.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the owner of a Scooter bearing No. M. R. A. 1305. On 26th April 1967 the Scooter was being driven by a friend of the plaintiff named Kevalbhai Bhagwandas Parmar and there was also one other person sitting behind Kevalbhai Bhagwandas Parmar on the pillion of the scooter. Whilst the scooter was being driven by Kevalbhai Bhagwandas Parmar one motor truck bearing No. G. T. A. 527 collided with it and considerable damage was caused to the scooter as a result of the accident. Kevalbhai Bhagwandas Parmar and the person sitting behind him also received bodily injuries and for claiming compensation for such bodily injuries they filed an application under sec. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 The plaintiff taking the view that he was not entitled to file an application under Sec. 110a for claiming compensation for the damage caused to the scooter instituted suit No. 222 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Navsari. The plaintiff claimed that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the motor truck and the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages from the owner and the driver of the motor truck for the loss sustained by him on account of damage to the scooter. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds one of which was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of sec. 110f and the only remedy of the plaintiff was to make an application for compensation under sec. 110 The defendants invited the learned trial Judge to try the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and since the issue of jurisdiction was a pure issue of law the learned trial Judge tried it as a preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that the claim for compensation made by the plaintiff in the suit was not liable to be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal under sec. 110 and the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit was therefore not excluded. This decision given by the learned trial Judge is assailed in the present Revision Application.

( 3 ) THE question which arises for determination is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation made by an owner of property which is damaged in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The determination of this question depends on a true interpretation of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 Sec. 110 provides for exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by enacting that where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for a any area no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is thus excluded only in so far as it concerns any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for the area concerned. It is not any and every claim for compensation which is excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil Court but only such claim as can be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal. To the extent to which any claim for compensation can be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal it would be outside the jurisdiction of the civil Court. It is therefore necessary to examine what is the jurisdiction of the Claims tribunal under the Act. Sec. 110 (1) as it stood at the material time prior to its amendment which came into force from 2nd March 1970 provided that the State Gover