( 1 ) THE appellant, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, was applicant in Appln. No. 15 of 1967 in the Employees State Insurance Court, bangalore. It has, in this appeal, challenged the order passed by the said court, dismissing the claim of the appellant. ( 2 ) THE appellant, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, filed an application on 7-3-1967 before the Court raising a dispute that it was entitled to be re-imbursed as per the provisoins of S. 67 of the Employees state Insurance Act 1948 (prior to its amendment on 11-12-1966) in regard to the claims paid by it to various persons in view of the accident that had occurred on 10-3-1964. The Court held that rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question had not been satisfactorily established and therefore the claim of the appellant was not sustainable. ( 3 ) IT is contended before us that by 11-12-1966 the jurisdiction of the said court to deal with disputes of this nature was taken away by the amending Act which came into force on 11-12-1966 and therefore this application made by the appellant was not maintainable before the lower court. ( 4 ) THE accident in question happened on 10-3-1964. Claims were paid by the appellant on various dates to different persons entitled to compensation. Majority of those payments were in the year 1964 itself. The provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, as it stood up till 11-12-1966 provided that in certain cases such an Insurance Corporation was entitled to be re-imbursed in regard to the amounts of compensation paid by it and if any dispute arose in respect of the question of such re-imbursement, the employees State Insurance Court had jurisdiction to deal with such disputes. The Amendment Act 1966, which came into force from 11-12-1966 repealed S. 67 under which an Insurance Corporation of the type of the appellant had been given a right to be re-imbursed. It also repealed S. 75 (2) (c) under which jurisdiction was vested in the Employees State Insurance Court to decide disputes of this nature. It is hence clear that on 7-3-1967 when the appellant instituted this application in the Employees state Insurance Court, that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes pertaining to the questions of re-imbursements under S. 67 of the employees State Insurance Act. It is hence clear that on 7-3-1967 when the appellant instituted this application in the Employees state Insurance Court, that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes pertaining to the questions of re-imbursements under S. 67 of the employees State Insurance Act. ( 5 ) -IT was contended on behalf of the appellant that though S. 67 was repealed by the Amending Act, a substantive right to be re-imbursed had accrued to the appellant on the date of the accident namely 10-3-1964 and the cause of action arose in favour of the appellant on the respective dates of payments of claims to the persons entitled to compensation and this substantive right could not have been taken away by repealing S. 67 of the employees State Insurance Act. Even if it is, for the sake of argument, assumed that this substantive right had accrued to the appellant, and the repealing of S. 67 of the Employees State Insurance Act had not affected this right, it would only go to show that the appellant could agitate this right and claim appropriate relief. The question would be as to which would be the forum in which the appellant has to institute the proceedings to claim such a relief on the basis of such a right. It is seen that the said right in the Employees State Insurance Act was taken away on 11-12-1966. The provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act as they stood prior to the amendment in 1966, and as they now stand, show that in regard to certain disputes enumerated in S. 75, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically barred. Prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act, a Civil Court could not have jurisdiction to decide such a claim because such jurisdiction lay with the E. S. I. Court as provided in Sec. 75 (2) (c) (unamended) and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court had been specifically taken away by S. 75 (3 ). Now, in view of the repealing of S. 67 and taking away of the jurisdiction of the E. S. I. Court under S. 75 (2) (c) it can easily be seen that the jurisdiction in regard to such a right has not been specifically taken away by S. 75 (3 ). Now, in view of the repealing of S. 67 and taking away of the jurisdiction of the E. S. I. Court under S. 75 (2) (c) it can easily be seen that the jurisdiction in regard to such a right has not been specifically taken away by S. 75 (3 ). It is a well recognised principle in law that a party has no 'right to claim that he is entitled to a relief in a particular forum. ( 6 ) IN the result, the claim of the appellant, if art all sustainable in law, ought to have been agitated in an appropriate Civil Court. The employees State Insurance Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding. Hence this appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .