Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard.

The revisionist who is a driver being aggrieved by the orders dated 1.11.2014 and 30.5.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in claim petition No. 587 of 2013 has questioned the legality of the impugned orders in the instant civil revision. By order dated 1.11.2014 an amendment application filed by the claimant seeking to change the number of offending tractor stated as UP 41 Q 3987 to UP 41 Q 3907 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was allowed. The revisionist filed an application for recall of order dated 1.11.2014 alleging therein that he was neither served a copy of the amendment application nor afforded any opportunity before passing the order and as such the order may be recalled. The application for recall of order was rejected on 30.5.2016 by the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant had all the opportunity to defend and no prejudice would be caused even if the amendment was allowed without notice. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC has been invoked to assail both the orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. The maintainability of the civil revision became questionable on account of a direct conflict between two judgements; one rendered on Aug. 07, 1997 by a Full Bench of this Court reported in the case of Kamla Yadav v. Smt. Sushma Devi and others, 2004 (22) LCD 40 and a later judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manju and others, 2007(4) ADJ 101 (DB), which relies upon a five Judge Bench decision rendered by Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. and others, AIR 2004 Kant. 1. It may be noted that at the time when Full Bench judgement was rendered; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 were not framed which came into force on 7.9.1998 and the Full Bench decision also went unnoticed by the Division Bench of this Court at the relevant time when the question of maintainability of appeal/revision against interlocutory orders passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was once again decided.

3. The Division Bench judgement referred to above related to a dispute which arose in the background of a Motor Accident claim decided on 23.11.2006 wherein an application filed by the Insurance Company claiming benefit under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to the final decision of claim was rejected on 15.11.2006. A question as to maintainability of appeal/revision against the interlocutory order dated 15.11.2006 passed on an application filed under Section 170 of the Act had cropped up and the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the matter in the context of relevant statutory provisions as well as decisions and relying upon the five-Judges judgement (supra) rejected the appeal /revision and has recorded a clear opinion on the maintainability of revision under Section 115 as not maintainable. The relevant para of the Division Bench judgement reads :

“8. According to us, an appeal or review or revision from the original order cannot be held to be an inherent right but statutory right. Unless the statute prescribes, no such right can be available for any person to proceed accordingly. In the instant case, a cryptic application was moved by the insurance company before the Tribunal making reference of collusion between the claimants and the insured without any supporting materials. The same was dismissed on such ground on 15.11.2006. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order, which can call upon any Court to interfere. Possibly the insurance company has understood the position having well equipped legal infrastructure unlike a rustic villager. It waited till the award was passed and when found responsible on behalf of the owner by the award, preferred the appeal from both the order and the award being forgetful that in case of rejection unde