T.N. Singh, J.

1. The question of maintainability of the revision is the moot point to be decided in this matter and on that counsel are heard.

2. Against an order dated 30.10.1991 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mcrena, rejecting an application under Section 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the instant revision is preferred. On merits, nothing need be said on the validity of the order though it may still be mentioned that the Tribunal found no case of 'permanent disablement' made out to make order for interim compensation in favour of the applicant, the revisionist.

3. For the insurer, impleaded as non-applicant No. 3, Mr. V.K. Sharma has appeared and has challenged the maintainability of the petition. He has placed implicit reliance on this court's recent Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar 1992 ACJ 200 (MP). He has submitted that two of the Hon'ble Judges in clear and categorical terms held that no appeal against order passed under Section 140 was maintainable and at the same time it was also explicitly held that any aggrieved person would not be remediless and he can move this court under Article 227 of the Consti