JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri A.D. Saunders, learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
2. The petitioner, who is plaintiff, aggrieved by grant of temporary permit on the same route on which he is plying by virtue of a permanent stage carriage permit, challenged the grant of temporary permit to respondents 4 to 8 before the Civil Court by means of a suit No. 130 of 2003 for injunction. In the said suit the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. Initially he was granted temporary injunction but subsequently when the parties put in appearance, the temporary injunction application has been dismissed by the trial court by its order dated 17th May 2003 firstly on the ground because under Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 civil court is not vested with the power to entertain a suit of the nature of which the present suit is. The trial court has also considered the question of continuation of injunction order on merit and round that three important ingredients - prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not found to have been established by the plaintiff and, therefore, injunction application has been rejected.
3. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which is numbered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2003, Sardar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., which has been decided by the lower appellate court by order dated 13th February 2004 whereby the lower appellate court has found that in view of provisions of Section 94 referred to above of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a suit is cognisable before the Civil Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the lower appellate court and the trial court have not taken into note the decision of this Court reported in 1997 (1) J.C.L.R. 702 Rajendra Kumar Singh v. Munsif, Kashipur and Ors. wherein this Court lays down that on the question of issuance or renewal of stage carriage permit the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant interim injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the appeal has been dismissed by the lower appellate court only or, this ground, the lower appellate court has not gone into the question as to whether the plaintiff appellant has been able to make out a case for continuation of injunction. He, therefore, submits that in view of the law referred to above, the order passed by the lower appellate court deserves to be quashed and the matter should be remanded to the lower appellate court to decide the matter on merits with regard to grant of injunction. Even if his contention is accepted for the time bong that the suit is not cognisable, the same is not correct in view of Rajendra Singh's case (supra).
5. In my opinion at this stage it is not necessary to remand back the case to the lower appellate court as the findings arrived at by the trial court for the three ingredients for grant or continuation of injunction order has not been satisfactorily demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, the injunction application was rejectee. I am in full agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court with regard to the aforesaid three ingredients which could not be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner either perverse or suffering from any illegality. This is also settled that this Court will not sit in appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over the findings arrived at by the trial court with regard to the three ingredients for granting temporary injunction.
6. In this view of the matter I do not find that the writ petition has any force. It is accordingly dismissed.
7. In the circumstances of the case the trial court is directed to expedite trial of the suit.