The Claims Tribunal is not a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal are not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

SUKHDEV SINGH KANG, J.

1. In this revision petition filed on behalf of claimants the following two questions have been referred for decision by a Division Bench :-

(a) Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding claim applications filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, is a Civil Court, subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure? and

(b) Whether the orders passed by a Tribunal in those proceedings are amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?

The facts leading to this reference lie in a short compass and may be stated thus :

2 Barkat Singh and others (claimants) filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Claims Tribunal). During the pendency of those proceedings, they moved an application for impleading Pal Singh as a respondent to the claim application. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the application. The claimants filed a revision petition under Sec.115, Civil P.C. (the Code for short) in this Court. During the hearing of the revision petition, a preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondents that the revision petition was not competent because the Claims Tribunal against whose decision the revision petition was filed was not a court of civil judicature and was not a Court subordinate to the High Court. Its orders were not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec.115 of the Code. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in Delhi Bhiwani Transport Co. V/s. Ram Niwas Surekha 1980 Acc CJ 207, holding that the Claims Tribunal acts as a court while disposing of the claims arising out of the motor vehicles accidents and a revision petition is maintainable against his orders does not lay down correct law under Sec.115 of the Civil P. C

3. Before proceeding to deal with the questions arising in this revision petition, we may briefly refer to the relevant statutory provisions having a bearing on the controversy : Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

"S.3 Subordination of courts :-

For the purposes of this Code, the District Court is subordinate to the High Court, and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every court of Small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court.

S.115. Revision. (1)- 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: Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where- (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

(2) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X"

Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act ) was substituted and the present Ss.110, 110-A, 110-B, 110-C, 110-D, 110-E and 110-F were added by S.80 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 100 of 1956, Sec.110 of the Act deals with the constitution and appointment of Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in relation to accidents involving death or bodily injuries to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Sec.110-B of the Act provides that on receipt of an application for compensation, the Claims Tribunal shall hold an inquiry an