( 1 ) LEAVE to add State of Gujarat as a party. Rule. Mr. S. T. Mahta, the learned A. G. P. waives service on behalf of the State which is the only vitally affected party in this revision petition. The Rule is finally heard and will stand disposed of by the following judgment :

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jamnagar, an application under Sec. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Old Act) for claiming compensation for personal injury sustained by her as a result of an automobile accident. Pending that application, she filed an interim application, Exh. 10, under Sec. 92a of the Old Act claiming interim compensation on the ground of no fault liability. In that application, she claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,500. 00. The learned District judge, Jamnagar who acted as the Claims Tribunal under Old Act directed the opponents to the application to deposit Rs. 7,500/- in the office of the tribunal with 12% interest thereon from the date of that application, Exh. 10. Accordingly, the opponents to the main application deposited Rs. 7,782 in the office of the Tribunal. The petitioner applied for the withdrawal of that amount. The Tribunal on that application passed the following order : "to be paid only after deduction of Court-fees as Account payee cheque. "

( 3 ) IT is the aforesaid order by which the Tribunal has directed the deduction of the Court-fees which hits the petitioner and she, therefore, filed this revision application under Sec. 115 of the C. P. C.

( 4 ) ON the question of maintainability of revision application, Mr. M. S. Shah, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal under the Old Act has all the trappings of a Civil Court and virtually for all purposes it is a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court, therefore, a revision under Sec. 115 of C. P. C. would be maintainable. To butress his argument, Mr. Shah relied upon the decision in the case of Shardaben wd/o. Sitaram Mohanlal v. M. I. Pandya and Am-, reported in (1971) XII GLR 97. Honble J. B. Mehta, J. as a learned single Judge of this High Court in that judgment has observed as follows :"it is obvious from the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is ousted and the Claims Tribunal is constituted under the Act to discharge the duties, which would have otherwise fallen on an ordinary Civil Court of the land. In view of Sec. 110 of the Act, the Tribunal possesses all the attributes of a Court and it has to decide the claim on the basis of legal evidence in accordance with law by a definitive final judgment. The Tribunal is for all intents and purposes a Civil Court discharging the same functions and duties in the same manner as a Civil court is expected to do. "relying upon the aforesaid observations made by the learned single Judge, mr. Shah submitted that though under the provisions of the Old Act, the Civil courts jurisdiction is ousted, none-the-less, the Tribunal has all the attributes of Civil Court and the District Judges who constitute the Tribunals in the state are, even as Tribunals, Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court and therefore, their judgments and orders would be amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the C. P. C.

( 5 ) MR. Shah in order further to support his argument, relied upon a full Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court in Anirudh Prasad ambasta and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. , reported in AIR 1990 Patna 49. The Full Bench of the Pataa High Court in that case has taken into consideration the decision in the cases of (1) State of Haryana v. Smt. Darshana Devi and Ors. , reported in AIR 1979 SC 855 and Bhagwati devi and Ors. v. M/s. I. S. Goel and Ors. , reported in 1983 0 ACJ 123. In the latter of the aforesaid two judgments, which has followed the former one, it has clearly been posited by Their Lordships of the Supreme court that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted u