MODI, J.—Tbis revision application is directed against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Pali dated May 29, 1975. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision application may briefly be stated as under. The non-petitioners No. 1 to 9 filed a petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,68,000/- against the petitioner and non-petitioners No. 10 and 11. It was alleged in the petition that on 16-4-1963 deceased Dr. Ganesh Dutt Nagar was going to Jalore from Jodhpur in his Ambassador Car bearing registration No. RJW 684. About two furlongs from Sanderao between mile stone No. 134 1 and 134-2 the Motor Bus No. RJL 7259, which was driven by non-petitioner No. 11 Ismaluddin and was owned by the petitioner namely the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, dashed against the Ambassador Car. According to the non-petitioners No. 1 to 9 the accident took place on account of rash and negligant driving of the driver Ismaluddin. As a result of the accident Dr. Ganesh Dutt Nagar died on the spot and the Ambassador car was smashed. This petition was opposed by the petitioner. The petitioner totally denied that the accident was caused by the driver Ismaluddin. It was also denied that the bus dashad against the Ambassador Car belonging to Ganesh Dutt Nagar. According to the petitioner the petitioners bus did not meet with any accident whatsoever on the fateful day. A report was made about the accident to the police The latter seized the bus bearing registration No. RJL 7259 on 26-4-1969. In proof of the fact that this very bus was involved in the accident the police seized certain Articles at the time of the seizure of the Bus. The police sent those articles to the Forensic Expert for his examination. It so appears that the articles sent to the Forensic laboratory were not received back. The non-petitioners number 1 to 9 consequently moved an application praying therein that they may be permitted to produce secondary evidence in regard to the existence and condition of the said articles. The court vide impugned order dated 29 5 75 allowed the application. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. The court vide impugned order dated 29 5 75 allowed the application. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of non-petitioners No. 1 to 9, that this revision application is not entertainable by this Court as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not subordinate to the High Court. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the non-petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Laxminarain Misra vs. Kailashnarain Gupta (1). The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has placed reliance on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishan Gopal vs. Dattatrya(2). Honble Kansingh J. in Laxminarain Misras case (1) after review of various authorities observed as follows— "The preponderance of authority is thus for the opinion that a Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is a mere Tribunal and not a court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure." 5. A contrary view has been taken by Honble Bhave J. in Krishan Gopals case(2). According to Bhave. J. "Any Tribunal constituted under any statute, by whatever name it is described, would be treated as a Court of Judicature if it is called upon to discharge the judicial functions of the sovereign State, untrammelled by executive considerations and if in reaching its conclusion it is required to follow the well recognised judicial principles. The claims Tribunal is such a Tribunal." He has further held that the claims Tribunal constituted under sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a Civil Court and a revision petition would lie under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by it in the course of proceedings before it. 6. I have gone through both these authorities and in my opinion the view taken by my learned brother Kansingh J. seems to be correct. The scheme under sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicle Act is entirely different. The State Government by notification in the official gazette constitute Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for specified areas for the purpose of adjudicating the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury arising out of use of motor vehicles. The scheme under sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicle Act is entirely different. The State Government by notification in the official gazette constitute Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for specified areas for the purpose of adjudicating the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury arising out of use of motor vehicles. It is permissible under the scheme of the said section to constitute a one member Tribunal. Persons qualified for appointment as member of a Claims Tribunal are (a) who is or has been a judge of the High Court, or (b) who is or has been a District Judge, or (c) who is qualified for appointment as a judge of the High Court. It is clear from the scheme that to be a District Judge is a mere qualification It is open to the State Govt. to appoint a person who is a District Judge of a particular district to be a member of the Claims Tribunal for such area which is not included in that district. Under the scheme it does not automatically follow that all claim petitions arising out of accidents within the limits of a particular district must be filed before the District Judge of that area The State Govt. can appoint a District Judge of another district to receive claim petitions in respect of accidents which occur in another district. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that a Claims Tribunal constituted under sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. Even otherwise I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses of sec. 115 CPC. 8. The revision application is therefore, not maintainable. 9. I accordingly uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the revision petition.