ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.354 of 2018 in O.S.No.109 of 2013 dated 16.09.2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, dismissing the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant. The respondents 1 and 2 /plaintiffs filed the above suit in O.S.No.109 of 2013 against the revision petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.

3. For sake convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking/status before the Trial Court.

4. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are sons of the first defendant. The plaintiffs, by alleging that the bus bearing Registration No.TN 65 Y 9516 together with permit to ply in the route from Paramakudi to Tirupathur, was owned by them, but the registration certificate and route permit stand in the name of their mother/first defendant, filed the above suit claiming the following reliefs:-

(a) Granting an order of permanent injunction against the first defendant or her agent not to alienate or encumber the schedule mentioned bus and route in any manner.

(b) Granting an order of permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant or her men or agent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned bus by the plaintiffs.

(c) Granting an order of permanent injunction against the defendants 2 to 4 not to transfer the schedule mentioned route permit to the third party without consent of the plaintiffs.

5. By amending the plaint, they have also claimed the following reliefs:-

(c) Declaring that the bus route and permit belong to the plaintiffs

6. The first defendant, by disputing the claim of the plaintiffs, has filed the written statement-cum-counter claim with the following prayers:-

(a) For mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to handover the R.C. Book of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 65 Y 9516 standing in the name of this defendant within the time granted by this Court and on the failure, order that the same be delivered through process of law

(b) For mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to handover the route permit issued in the name of this defendant from Paramakudi to Tirupathur by the Regional Transport Authority, Sivagangai to this defendant within the time granted by this Court and on the failure, order that the same be delivered through process of law

7. When the suit was in part heard stage, the above petition came to be filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the following two grounds:-

“(a) The suit is barred under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(b) The suit is also barred under Section 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.”

8. Let us first consider the alleged bar of the suit under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is necessary to refer to Section 94 of Motor Vehicles Act, which 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.”

9. As already pointed out, the plaintiffs have also claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from transferring the suit schedule route permit to any third party without the consent of the plaintiffs, by impleading the transport authorities as defendants 2 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant has filed a petition in I.A.No.353 of 2018 under Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code for withdrawal of her counter claim and the same was allowed and that thereby, the counter claim was permitted to be withdrawn without liberty and consequently, the counter claim of the first defendant was ordered to be