The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not a civil court and not subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THESE two civil revision petitions are preferred against the order dt. 12. 8. 1980 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bidar. in M. V. C. Nos. 7 and 8 of 1979 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for amendment of the objections.

( 2 ) IT is contended by Sri. M. M. Jagirdar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, that the Motor Accident Claims tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "claims Tribunal" constituted under Sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a Tribunal and it is not a 'court' subordinate to the High Court; therefore, the jurisdiction of the High court under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') cannot be either invoked or exercised. The learned Counsel has, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) 1973 (2) Kar. L. J. 473 [state of Mysore -v- K. L. Subbanna]; (2) AIR 1974 Rajastan, 55 [laxminarain Misra v. Kailash narain Gupta and Ors. ]; (3) AIR 1977 Rajastan, 236 [rajastan Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Kalawati and Ors. ] (4) AIR 1968 Goa, 78 [branch manager, The British India Gen. Insurance Co. , Ltd. , v. . Chandi Shaikh abdulkadar] (5) AIR 1961 S. C. 1669 [harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sundar] (6) AIR 1965 S. C. 1595 [associciated Cement Companies Ltd. , v. P. N. Sharma and Anr. ] (7) 1980 ACJ 287 [beeran v. Rajappan] (Kerala) (8) 1966 ACJ 37 Khairunnissa a. K. Saddiki and Ors. v. The Municipal Corporation, Bombay and Ors. It is furtther submitted by Sri. Jagirdar that this Court has already decided that "claims Tribunal" is a tribunal and not a Court; therefore, the Civil revision petitions are not maintainable.

( 3 ) ON the contrary, it is contended by Sri. Shivaraj Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions that in the earlier decision of this court in State of Mysore. v. K. L. Subbanna, (1) no reasons are contained and the decisions of the other High Courts in which a contrary view is expressed have also not been brought to the notice of the Court, therefore, the question requires to be reconsidered. It is further submitted that though the authority is called "motor Accidents claims Tribunal", but nevertheless, it exercises and performs judicial powers and functions and it exercises all the powers 01 a civil court for the purpose of taking evidence; and it has got the authority to adjudicate finally the claims for compensation falling under its purview and as such, it has got all the trappings of a civil court; therefore it is a civil court and not a Tribunal. It is also further submitted that claims Tribunal apart from being a civil Court is also a court subordinate to the High Court, inasmuch as the appellate jurisdiction is exercised by the high Court as an appeal lies to the high Court against an award of a claims Tribunal; hence, the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code, can he exercised. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: (3) 1971 A. C. J. 247 (Shanti devi v. General Manager, Haryana roadways ). (Punjab and Haryana) (2) 1971 A. C. J. 156 (Hukam chand Insurance Co. Ltd. , v. Subhashini Roy and Anr.) Calcutta) (3) 1971 A. C. J. 367 (Eagle Star insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. L. V. Kumar) (Delhi ). (4) 1971 A. C. J. 372 (Krishna gopal and Ors. v. Dattatrya)= AIR 1972 M. P. 125 (Madhya Pradesh) (5) 1975 A. C. J. 433 (Kishen chand Wadhmal v. K. M. Satwani and Anr.) (Gujarat ). (6) AIR 1978 Punjab and Haryana 265 (Smt. Darshana Devi and Ors v. Sher Singh and others ). (7) AIR 1970 Bom. 278 (Smt. Rajiyabi Oosman Sayi and Anr. v. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) ltd.) = 1970 ACJ 350. (8) AIR 1970 S. C. 1 (Shankar ramachandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatrya Bapat)

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid contentions, the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether a decision of this court reported in 1973 (2) Kar. L J 473, requires