LAXMANSINGH Vs. PARMANAND DAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, owner of the vehicle, has filed this misc. appeal under Order 43, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') against the order dated 7.12.1998 passed by Third M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 24 of 1998 whereby allowed the application of respondents-claimants filed under Order 38, rule 5 of the Code.

(2.) The short submission of Mr. Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has no power to order for the attachment of the property on the principle under Order 38, rule 5 of the Code as under section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with rule 240 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, the provisions of Order 38, rule 5 of the Code are not applicable to the claim cases and more so the circumstances for passing an order under Order 38, rule 5 of the Code also do not exist in this case.

(3.) In reply, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for respondents cited a decision in the case of Mansingh Sajjusingh v. Sudhir Ganpatrao Girdhari, 1986 ACJ 828 (Bombay), in which it has been held that rule 310 of the Bombay Rules impliedly empowers the Tribunal to act on the provisions of Order 38, rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. But that rule 310 under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 is not applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the aforesaid citation is not applicable to this case.