Civil court status of a special tribunal supported revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, despite its statutory character.

The Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 was treated as a civil court for purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure because it was composed of specified civil courts, decided civil disputes, followed the Code in its procedure, and its decrees were executable through the civil court framework. On that basis, it was held to be subordinate to the High Court for Section 115 purposes, so revision lay against its orders. A dissent viewed the Tribunal as a distinct statutory forum outside revisional jurisdiction under Section 115.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether a revision lies against its orders under that provision.

Analysis: The Tribunal was constituted from specified Civil Courts and was required to decide disputes of a civil nature between parties asserting civil rights. The statutory scheme treated the Tribunal as a distinct forum for the special Act, but its proceedings were regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, its decrees were executable by the Civil Court acting as Tribunal, and appeals lay to the High Court. These features showed that the Tribunal was a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 3 of the Code and was subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 115. The majority rejected the view that the Tribunal was outside the revisional reach of the High Court merely because it functioned under a special statute. The contrary view treated the Tribunal as not subordinate and denied revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a revision lies against its orders.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of maintainability of revision before the High Court.

Dissenting Opinion: Vashishtha Bhargava, J., held that the Tribunal functioned as a distinct statutory tribunal and not as a Court subordinate to the High Court for Section 115 purposes, so no revision lay against its orders.

---