petitioners mother. When it has been a settled law that even if there is a dispute between two or more parties, the authority should consider the grant of transfer of permit without entering into the civil dispute. But these facts have not been properly appreciated by the first respondent. Continuing his arguments, it was stated that in the present cases, a suit has been filed by Mr.M.Vasudevan, the brother of the petitioners and third respondent herein, on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in O.S.No.1139 of 2011 seeking only a bare injunction against the mother of the petitioners from transferring the permits in favour of the petitioners. When the third respondent has not filed any suit for partition, the suit is nothing but only an infructuous suit that does not have any consequence. Therefore, the pendency of the suit filed by the third respondent-M.Vasudevan cannot come in the way of grant of transfer of permits. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel also relied upon an unreported order of this Court in W.P.Nos.620, 621 and 14801 of 2007 dated 30.4.2010 (E.Kumuda v. The Regional Transport Authority, Salem and others) to say that if the permit is not transferred within the prescribed time limit, there is a possibility of losing the permit itself. It may not help either the petitioners or the respondents and it is open for the contesting respondent viz., the brother of the petitioners to raise the issue in the civil Court and if he proves he is entitled to a share of the property and there is time enough to work out his share that may be decreed in the suit. On this basis, it was further contended that when the third respondent has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.1139 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry seeking for only a permanent injunction against the mother of the petitioners Tmt.Rajaveni restraining her from transferring the permits in favour of the petitioners, without asking for any permanent relief like a decree for declaration or title, this Court, without being influenced by the pendency of the civil suit instituted by the third respondent, should give a direction to the first respondent to consider the two applications as per Section 82 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, the relief sought for in the said suit has now become infructuous, since the mother of the petitioners died on 23.9.2012 and the petitioners have succeeded to the possession of the vehicles. Otherwise, both the petitioners would be losing the permits of the vehicles themselves. He has also relied upon one another unreported judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1511 of 2009 dated 28.10.2009 (K.Kumar v. Tmt.Poomani and others) for the same ratio.
