JUDGMENT

J.J. Munir, J.

These Civil Revisions arise out of orders passed by the Presiding Officers of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals at Ballia and Chandauli that are not awards amenable to appeal under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. The revisions were not formally connected, but since both involve an identical question about maintainability, the issue is being dealt with by a common order.

2. Civil Revision No. 66 of 2022 preferred under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenges an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballia in Misc. Case No. 22 of 2019, refusing to set aside the ex-parte award dated 22.12.2018 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 44 of 2022.

3. By the order impugned in Civil Revision No. 48 of 2022, the revisionist has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code to set aside the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandauli in Misc. Case No. 93 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal has condoned a delay of four years and nine months by the claimants in making an application to restore Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 104 of 2010, that was dismissed in default on 10.12.2013. This Court, noticing some conflict of opinion about the maintainability of a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code against an order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act, asked the learned Counsel appearing for the revisionists in both matters to address us on the issue of maintainability.

4. Mr. Vikrant Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist has been heard in Civil Revision No. 66 of 2022 and Mr. Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist in Civil Revision No. 48 of 2022. Both the learned Counsel have been heard only on the question of maintainability.

5. In yesteryears and in different Courts, there has been conflict of opinion whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act or the Tribunal functioning under the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1939 is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 (1) of the Code, so as to make an order passed by the Tribunal amenable to the High Court's jurisdiction in a Civil Revision. Much of the reasoning in those decisions has centered around the distinction between a Court and a Tribunal. It has also been considered in those decisions what subordination of a Court means in the context of Section 115 of the Code. In particular, notice has been taken of Section 3 of the Code, which defines the subordination of Courts.

6. Amongst older decisions holding that the Tribunal constituted under the Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the Code are those of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Orissa Co-operative Insurance Company (now) New India Assurance Company Limited v. Subashini Pradhan and others 1977 SCC Online Ori 3 : 1977 ACJ 283; a Division Bench of the Kerela High Court in Beeran v. Rajappan 1979 SCC Online Ker 189 : 1980 ACJ 287 and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Barkat Singh and others v. Hans Raj Pandit and others 1984 SCC Online P&H 632 : AIR 1985 P&H 263. In our Court also, there is a decision by a learned Single Judge, holding that under the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1939 "the Act of 1939" for short, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court, within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. The said decision is Satish Chandra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh through the Collector, Farrukhabad. In Smt. Afsar