ORDER:- This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the judgment dated 2-5-1977 of the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, dismissing the petitioner-Societys revision petition under Section 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Central District, Manipur, by his order dated 17-4-1976 allotted to the respondent-Society, namely, Sekmai Khunbi Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd., Registered No. 59 of 1969, 46.29 acres of land under C.S. Dag Nos. 259, 287, 359 and 371 of Village No. 116 within Thoubal Sub-division. From that order, the petitioner Society, namely, Nongpok Sekmai Collective Farming Co-operative Society Ltd., Registered No. 11 of 1975-76, filed a revenue revision application under Section 95 of the Act, urging, inter alia, that the petitioner-Society reclaimed and improved the disputed land in 1967 and had ever since been in cultivating possession and expected to obtain allotment thereof; but, to their surprise, the disputed land was allotted to the respondent Society, and on a revision application, the Honble Lt. Governor/Administrator set aside the said allotment order holding that the respondent Society consisted of imposters, vide Order dated 9-7-1970; thereafter, the respondent Society eliminated some of their members so as to claim preference under Rule 8(ii) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Rules; the petitioner Society also applied for allotment of the same claiming similar preference under Rule(8)(ii), but the Deputy Commissioner passed order on 17-4-1976 allotting 46.29 acres of the dispute land to the respondent Society.

3. Being moved in revision under Section 95 of the Act the Revenue Tribunal Manipur, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in its judgment dated 2-5-1977 observed, inter alia, that while the allotment order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 17-4-1976, the revision petition before it was filed on 8-9-1976 i.e., after 4½ month of the date of the order, that Section 95 of the Act prescribed no period of limitation for revision, but that it was open to the Tribunal to decline interference in revision if it considered that such interference would defeat the end of justice; that the petitioner Society did not substantiate its statement of having made diligent efforts to obtain certified copy the impugned order without any result by furnishing any copy of the application so made; that the petitioner Society approached the Tribunal rather belatedly and that interference under those conditions would result in endless litigation and in that view of the matter the revision petition was dismissed. Hence this application.

4. Mr. Y. Imo Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent Society takes a preliminary objection contending that no revision application under Section 115, C.P.C or Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Tribunal passed in revision under Section 95 of the Act is maintainable, inasmuch as the impugned order is not of a Civil Court and it was passed by the Tribunal while Article 227, as amended by the Forty-Second Amendment was in force, which excluded Tribunals from the superintending jurisdiction of the High Courts.

5. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners refutes the preliminary objection asserting that the Tribunal is a Court and the revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is maintainable before the High Court; and the Tribunal as a Court did not fall outside the superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, as amended by the Forty-Second Amendment.

6. Two preliminary questions are required to be determined, namely, (i) whether from the order of the Tribunal dated 2-5-1977 passed under Section 95 of the Act a revision application under Sec.115, C.P.C. is maintainable