SAC 18/2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH D.B. Civil Special Appeal [Civil] No.18/2006 Harbhajan & Ors. Versus Murari Lal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 09/08/2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. KOTHARI Mr. Elesh Jindal for Mr. L.P. Singhal, for the appellant Mr. Rishipal Singh for Mr. Virendra Lodha, for the respondents *** Today this appeal is listed in default for not taking steps for issuance of notice to respondent Nos.2(a) & 2(b) and further for not filing Power on behalf of respondent No.3. With the consent of parties, we have also perused the record and heard their submissions. This appeal is filed by appellant of Civil Misc. Appeal No.1623/2001 under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment dated 28/11/2005 passed by Single Judge in the afore-mentioned appeal. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said appeal which arose out of an award passed by the Member of the Claims Tribunal u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by which the appellants' application made under Section 166 ibid was allowed and in consequence an award for a sum of Rs.1 lac was passed in SAC 18/2006 [2] their favour for the death of the child namely; Dalveer. The appellant felt dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal filed an appeal u/s.173 ibid before this Court which as stated supra was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order giving rise to filing of this intra-court appeal before this Court under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. Learned Counsel for respondents at the outset by placing reliance upon Sec.100-A inserted by Act No.104 of 1976 raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of this intra-court appeal. According to him, this section was interpreted by Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vaibhav Kumar, 2007 (3) TAC-447 wherein this Court in identically situated matter held that such appeal after insertion of Sec.100-A is not maintainable. In our opinion, the objection raised by the respondents' Counsel deserves to be accepted as it has a force. Admittedly, this appeal is filed u/s.18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance which arose out of the award passed by learned Single Judge in exercise of its appellate power u/s.173 ibid. As held by Division Bench of this Court in SAC 18/2006 [3] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation [supra], interpreting Sec.100-A, this appeal has to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, though today this case is listed in default, but with the consent of parties and hearing their submissions, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal as not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost. [S.S.KOTHARI], J. [A.M. SAPRE],J. FRBOHRA18SAC2006 09-08.doc