Important Point:
a)The expression “court” in ordinary parlance is a generic expression and in the context in which it occurs may mean a 'body or organisation' invested with power, authority or dignity, the sovereign's place; b)Supreme court observed the concept of court that “before a person or persons can be said to constitute a court, it must be held that they derive their powers from the State and are exercising the judicial powers of the State”.c)An adjudicatory body invested with certain traits and trappings of the court is not necessarily a 'court' in the core concept of the court

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Whether the Mamlatdar’s Court under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 and the Collector exercising powers under Section 23(2) of the Act, could be said to be a ‘court’, and the court ‘subordinate to High Court’ within the ambit of and as envisaged under Section 115 read with Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; whether therefore Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie against the orders passed under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act - are the crisp questions of law required to be addressed and decided together with their incidental legal contours.

2. A divergence of views arose as to the question whether the orders passed under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, in particular the order of the Collector passed in exercise of his powers under Section 23 of the Act, could be challenged by filing Civil Revision Application by invoking Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2.1 This Court in order dated 05th August, 2010 passed in Narendrabhai Raijibhai Patel v State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.13028 of 2009, order dated 29th June, 2010 in Patel Fuljibhai Ghemarbhai v State being Special Civil Application No.7445 of 2010 and order dated 01st May, 2014 in Devchandrabhai V. Kachhadiya v Batukbhai Visami being Special Civil Application No.5465 of 2014, after placing reliance on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Babaji Kondaji Mali v Bala Fakira Mahar [1938 BLR (Vol.40) 104]; Dalpat Zopdoo Patil v Mahadu Uka [1912 BLR (Vol.14) 259] as well as in Purshottam Janardhan Chaphakar v Mahadu Pandu Turmalkar [1912 BLR (Vol.14) 947], took the view that Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to sa 'the Code') is maintainable.

3. While dealing with the captioned Civil Revision Application, learned Single Judge, after prima facie consideration of Section 115 read with Section 3 of the Code and further prima facie taking into account the kind and nature of the provisions of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act viewed the issue differently, stating inter alia in order dated 07th April, 2017,

“9. From the aforestated provisions of Mamlatdars' Courts Act, it clearly transpires that the legislature has drawn a clear distinction between the Mamlatdar's Court and the Civil Court, inasmuch as specific references of Civil Court have been made in many provisions as distinct from the Mamlatdar's Court. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the Court presided over by Mamlatdar to decide the disputes under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, may be called Mamlatdar's Court but could not be called a Civil Court much less a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court as contemplated under Section 3 for the purposes of exercising powers under Section 115 of CPC.”

3.1 The issue was referred to the Division Bench, and accordingly came to be placed before this Bench.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sunit Shah with learned advocate Mr.Maunish Pathak, learned advocate Mr.Asim Pandya and learned advocate Mr.Dipen Shah, who all staunchly argued that Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code would lie. According to them, the nature of powers exercised under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are suggestive that the authorities under the Act function as a court and a civil court. It was sought to be highlighted from the provisions of the Act more particularly from the provision of Section 5 of the Act, by submitting that under the provisions the authorities are vested with powers of civil and judicial nature for adjudication of disputes with regard to possession and enjoyment of land including rights in relation to the land-use, which is an important feature to make the Mamlatdar a civil court. It was submitted that as per Section 5, every Mamlatdar is to preside over a court having power to issue injunctions. It was submitted that a petition presented before the Mamlatdar under Section