Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 12. 2007 made in I.A.No.137 of 2007 in MCOP.No:148 of 2006 by the file of the learned III-Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore dismissing the I.A., filed by the revision petitioner/3rd respondent in the MCOP to permit the Insurance company to take up all defenses invoking the provision of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. According to the revision petitioner, both the driver and owner viz., the first and second respondents in the MCOP have filed their counter statements and have for name sake cross examined PW.1 and PW.2. But contrary to their pleadings in the counter statements, and the evidence available in Ex.P.8, both the respondents 1 and 2 have reported that there is no oral evidence from their side. According to the Insurance company, this will only establish the collusion with the claimant. Therefore, the revision petitioner be permitted to take up all defences that can be taken up by the driver and owner of the vehicle without prejudice to the provisions contained in Sub Section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 resisted the said Interlocutory Petition contending that there is no collusion as alleged by the Insurance Company, instead, they are prosecuting the case diligently and the said petition is not maintainable, particularly when enquiry has been started in the main MCOP. 4. The learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, on a consideration of the pleadings and submissions of the respective counsel dismissed the said Interlocutory Application holding that Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be invoked by the revision petitioner. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision is filed. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 in the MCOP, being the Driver and the Owner of the vehicle are not interested in resisting the claim made by the claimant and this is evident from the conduct of the respondents 1 and 2 in stating before the court that they are not going to let in any oral evidence in support of their case, which is contrary to the pleadings made by them in their respective counter affidavits. 6. 6. In the present case, merely because the respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavits, it cannot be said that they are effectively contesting the case in view of the allegation made by the revision petitioner as mentioned above. There is a reasonable apprehension on the part of the revision petitioner that the accident could be a stage managed one and the respondents 1 and 2 are colluding with the claimant. Therefore, I am of the view that the revision petitioner be permitted to contest the case on all grounds that are available to the driver and owner of the vehicle under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, without prejudice to the right of the respondents 1 and 2 to contest the claim other than under Section 149(2) of the said Act. 7. In the result, this CRP is allowed setting aside the order made in I.A.No.137 of 2007 in MCOP.No.148 of 2006 passed by the learned III-Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.