( 1 ) I agree with my brother Ramabhadran that the Tribunal established under the Displaced persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (No. 70 of 1951) is not a court subordinate to this Court within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C. In Braj Nandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain, (S) AIR 1956 SC 66, the Supreme Court has held that prima facie, a subordinate court within the meaning of Section 115 means a court subordinate to the High Court in the hierarchy of courts. The Tribunal, as such, is not a court in the hierarchy of courts. The Legislature; went out of its way to use the word "tribunal". Although the powers of the Tribunal were conferred upon a Civil Judge, it was not satisfied with conferring jurisdiction under the Act upon the Civil Judge having territorial jurisdiction, but went out of its way to constitute a Tribunal, though to be presided over by a civil Judge. The provisions of the Act show that it was not the intention of the Legislature that the Civil Judge should exercise the jurisdiction, conferred by the Act as a Civil Judge, but to create a new court, though to be presided over by a Civil Judge, It contains provisions such as sections 26, 28, 40 and 53 suggesting that he was meant to exercise the jurisdiction over the cases coming under the Act not as a Civil Judge but as a person designate. If he were to exercise the same jurisdiction when trying a case under the Act as he exercises when trying a suit for defamation or malicious prosecution, or for breach of contract, or for recovery of money lent the legislature would not have enacted these provisions because the provisions contained in the c. P. C. would have been ample. I have no justification for saying that the Act created an additional class of cases to be tried by a Civil Judge.

( 2 ) I have not been persuaded to agree that the view that I expressed in the case of Phul Kumari v. State (S) AIR 1957 All 495 requires reconsideration. These revision applications are not maintainable and must be dismissed. Ramabhadban, J.

( 3 ) THESE two revision petitions arise out of two applications made by Lal Chand Jetly (petitioner)to the Tribunal functioning under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act of 1951 (Act 70 of 51) against the respondents, Bharat Nidhi Ltd. , and Bharat Bank Employees Provident Fund, respectively. In one case he sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 5131/8/- and, in the other Rs. 1667/8/ -. The Tribunal dismissed the former claim but decreed the latter claim to the tune of Rs. 755/ -. There being no right of appeal, vide Sections 40 and 41 of the Act, Lal Chand Jetly has come up in revision. His revisions came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Mukherji who has referred the cases to a Bench as, in his opinion, an important point of law was involved, i. e. , whether the Tribunal, acting under the Act, would be subordinate, in relation to the High Court, within the meaning of Section 115 C. P. C.

( 4 ) ARGUMENTS on this point of learned counsel of both sides were heard at considerable length. For reasons to be stated shortly, I am of the opinion, that the preliminary objection raised for the opposite party is well founded and as such these revision petitions must be rejected as not competent.

( 5 ) MR. R. S. Pathak for the opposite party invited my attention to the provision of Section 4 of the act, which empowers the State Government to specify any civil court or class of civil courts as tribunal or tribunals, having authority to exercise jurisdiction under this Act. Similarly Section 2 (12) defines a tribunal, as any civil court specified under Section 4, as having authority to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. further, under Section 28 it is competent for the civil court which has been specified as a tribunal for the purposes of the Act to execute its decrees and orders, in the same manner as it could have done, if it were a decree or order passed by it as a civil court. Mr. Pathak urged that merely because the Act contemplates that a civi