( 1 ) HEARD Mr. S. P. Shankar.

( 2 ) THE first question which has to be satisfied by the court is whether the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal is a civil court for the purpose of section 115 of the Civil procedure Code. Section 115 reads as under:"115. Revision. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. "a reading of this section per se reveals that the revision lies from an order passed by the civil court subordinate to the High court, from which no appeal lies to the court, provided the order suffers from jurisdictional error. It further provides and ordains that after the above mentioned conditions are fulfilled unless it is shown that the order, if allowed to stand, may result in injustice and the party affected may be subjected to irreparable loss and injury, the court under section 115 of the code will not interfere with that order. The first prerequisite condition to be satisfied is whether the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal is a court or not. Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court from entertaining any question relating to claim for compensation which may be adjudicated by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. There may be situation if we deem this Tribunal to be a civil court, then it may come in direct conflict with the provisions of section 175. 2a. The scheme of the Constitution as per Part VI, Chapter VI and Part XIV-A reveals that the framers of the Constitution have always considered courts of civil jurisdiction or courts of criminal jurisdiction on the one hand and Tribunals on the other hand to be distinct entities. It is also revealed by Article 227 of the Constitution whereunder the power of supervision and superintendence, no doubt has been conferred on the High Court over every court and Tribunal. That when the framers of the constitution constituted Tribunals, they constituted it to be the institutions distinct from civil and criminal courts and in the context of section 175 of Motor Vehicles act, 1988 which bars the jurisdiction of civil court from entertaining any question relating to compensation payable thereunder and the Tribunals have been constituted to go into the question relating to claims for compensation, then the Tribunals cannot be considered to be civil court or court subordinate to High Court. Even in the case of a criminal court deciding a criminal case, no revision can lie to the high Court under section 115 of Code of civil Procedure. Revisions against the orders of subordinate criminal courts may lie to the High Court under section 401 of code of Criminal Procedure, but not under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. If no revision lies under section 115 of Civil procedure Code, from orders passed by criminal court in a case, it is inconceivable that orders passed by the Tribunal such as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or by Educational Appellate Tribunal can be subject-matter of revision jurisdiction of High Courts, under section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure by presuming or deeming such Tribunals to be civil court, specially when the Motor Vehicles Act or karnataka Private Education Institutions act, 1975 or Karnataka Education Act, on the one hand bar the jurisdiction of civil court over which jurisdiction and power has been conferred to deal with on the tribunals and the Act does not so provide that these Tribunals be deemed to be civil courts. When I so observe, I find support for my view by a decision of Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of h. C. D. Mathur, Secretary of the Nati