1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3433/1999 Debashish Patil Magar and another ..versus.. Ravi Vishram Khichan AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3434/1999 Debashish Patil Magar and another ..versus.. Vinod Gopal Pimple =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Ms. U.R.Tanna, Counsel for the petitioners. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 6th JULY, 2010. Heard learned counsel. She informs, the petition in terms of Section 166 of M.V. Act being Claim Petition No. 690/98 moved by the Claimant Ravi (respondent herein) is dismissed on 14.6.2006 in default and it is not restored. In this scenario, the orders under Section 140 of M.V. Act, according to the learned counsel, will not be available to be entertained. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme 2 Court in the matter of Yallawa & others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2582, since there operates an appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is allowed to withdraw the writ petition to adopt proper proceedings to challenge the order under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Writ petition disposed of. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit