Judgment A. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE non-petitioner no. 2 is a son of petitioners uncle Shri Ram Pratap He wanted to usurp the bus R. J. I. 2505 and permit under the pretext that under so called family arrangement the said bus No. R. J. I. 2505 and the permit No. CH/282 has fallen to his share. The Police Station, Rajgarh Petitioner and non-petitioner submitted applications under Section 451 Cr. P. C. ceased the bus for want of documents before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh. The interim custody of the said bus was given to non-petitioner No. 4. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order which is pending. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that non-petitioner No. 2 filed a civil suit Banwari Lal v. Hazarilal and R. T. A Bikaner in the Civil Court of Hissar for mandatory and prohibitory injunction to the effect that bus No. R. J. I. 641/2505 which fell to the share of the plaintiff on the basis of family settlement arrived at Hissar on 5. 7. 1979 and the route permit No. CH/282 and the Registration Certificate which are in the name of defendant no. 1 is directed to get these documents transferred in the name of the plaintiff and also restraining from plying bus No. D. B. P. 936 on the aforesaid permit which he replaced on 26. 11. 1990 in place of bus No. 2055 and also to get the record from defendant No. 2. The court on 20. 11. 1990 passed an ex-perte order restraining the defendant from transferring his route permit and registration certificate to any other person and further restraining from replacing the vehicle till further order accept in accordance of law. Petitioner filed a written statement and submitted a reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 Cr. P. C. and it is alleged that petitioner also objected the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. However, on 14th June, 1991 if was observed By the trial Court that ex-perte injunction will also be applicable to defendant No. 2 i. e. R. T. A. Bikaner. ( 3 ) AGAINST all these proceedings present writ petition has been filed. From the record it appears that even the application under Order 39 Rule 1 Cr. P. C. has not been finally disposed of by the trial Court. ( 4 ) MR. ( 3 ) AGAINST all these proceedings present writ petition has been filed. From the record it appears that even the application under Order 39 Rule 1 Cr. P. C. has not been finally disposed of by the trial Court. ( 4 ) MR. B. L. Maheshwari, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer of the permit or registration of the permit or renewal or replacement of the vehicle all such matters are governed by the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and the civil Court has no jurisdiction and in this connection learned counsel has invited my attention to Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 5 ) MR. R. R. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the matter is ceased by the civil court and petitioner have a remedy of appeal and in alternative learned counsel submitted that the proper course for the petitioner was to raise a preliminary issue and let the trial Court decide the matter. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is true that under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act the civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. The Motor Vehicles Act is a code in itself and all matter like the transfer of the permit, registration of the permit, renewal, all are governed under this Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred. Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: Bar or jurisdiction of civil Court 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 to or be taken by the duly constituted authorities under this Act with regard to the grant of permit shall be entertained by any civil Court. Thus, there is a total bar of the civil Court to interfere in the matter pertaining to Motor Vehicles Act for renewal, transfer of permit, registration of the permit etc. In this connection Mr. Maheshwari has also invited my attention to the decision of Omkar Singh v. R. T. A. Bareilly in which it has been held that the grant of ex-perte decree by the civil Court restraining the R. T. A. from granting permit is illegal and without jurisdiction. In this connection Mr. Maheshwari has also invited my attention to the decision of Omkar Singh v. R. T. A. Bareilly in which it has been held that the grant of ex-perte decree by the civil Court restraining the R. T. A. from granting permit is illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been observed: Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to issue injunction order not only in respect of the action already taken in the matter of grant of permit but they are also prohibited to issue preventive orders in connection therewith and the only situation in which the civil Court can interfere in the matter of grant of permit is when the transport authorities, which had granted the permit or likely to grant permit are not duly constituted. Thus, so far as matter regarding the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of permit or transfer of permit or registration or renewal is concerned, it is not within the jurisdiction of the civil Court under the Motor vehicles Act. Therefore, it is apparent that the civil Court has no jurisdiction but since the matter is already pending before the civil Court, let the civil Court decide this issue as a preliminary issue and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. It is a matter in which a family settlement issue is also involved and all those matters are not before me, therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to adjudicate on this issue and I leave it to civil Court to decide the matter specially issue regarding Motor Vehicles Act like registration, permit, renewal etc. the present vehicle in question. Both the parties shall appear before the civil Court on 4th November, 1993. It is expected that civil Court shall dispose of the matter expeditiously. With these observations, the writ petition accordingly disposed of. Writ petition disposed of fly accordingly.