A. N. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition presents a peculiar state of facts. The respondent No. 4, R. A. Dubey, was an employee of the Department of Telecommunication from which he retired on 30-4-1980. Some disciplinary proceedings initiated during the service of the said respondents were concluded only after his retirement. He was, however, eventually cleared of the charges and given the selection grade along with his arrears of pay etc. The respondent No. 4 filed a Civil Suit No. 1398 of 1983 against the petitioners seeking a declaration that he should be deemed to have been in Group B service of the Tele-communication Wing in the Post and Telegraph Department w. e. f. 8-8-1973 till his retirement. This suit was decreed ex parte on 7-5-1985. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application before the learned Munsif stating that they came to know of the ex parte decree only on the date of the attachment of some properties of the Department on 16-7-1986. The ex parte decree was set aside by the learned Munsif on 17-7-1986 allowing the application of the petitioners filed under O. IX, R. 13 of the Civil P. C. ( 2 ) AGAINST that order the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Gorakhpur which was heard and disposed of by the learned IIIrd Addl. District Judge by his judgment and order dt. 19-8-1987. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the learned Munsif dt. 17-7-1986 on the ground that with the establishment of the Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, learned Munsif had ceased to have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners approached the Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench which has by the impugned order dt. 26-10-1987 dismissed the appeal on the short ground that the same is not covered by the provisions of S. 29-A of the Administrative Tribunals Act. ( 3 ) THE present petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners approached the Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench which has by the impugned order dt. 26-10-1987 dismissed the appeal on the short ground that the same is not covered by the provisions of S. 29-A of the Administrative Tribunals Act. ( 3 ) THE present petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal. The first relief claimed by the petitioner is that a direction be issued to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench to summon the file of Suit No. 1398 of 1983 of the Court of the learned Munsif, Gorakhpur and to decide the application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Civil P. C. The second relief prayed for is that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge allowing the appeal of the fourth respondent and setting aside the order of the learned Munsif be quashed. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am clearly of the view that neither of these two reliefs can be granted. Obviously, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to determine the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies by way of an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) COMING to the second relief claimed in regard to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the position that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter after the relevant date, i. e. 1-11-1985. The Additional District Judge was, therefore, not wrong in taking the view that the learned Munsif ceased to have jurisdiction to deal with the suit after 1-11-1985. Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in that view of the matter, the learned Addl. District Judge himself could not deal with the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 which was directed against the order of the learned Munsif. ( 6 ) I am unable to agree. Under S. 96 and O. 43, R. 1 of the Civil P. C. appeals are provided against the decrees and orders passed by Courts of first instance. It was in exercise of this undoubted power that the learned Addl. District Judge had passed the order. That power is still available with the learned District Judge. Under S. 96 and O. 43, R. 1 of the Civil P. C. appeals are provided against the decrees and orders passed by Courts of first instance. It was in exercise of this undoubted power that the learned Addl. District Judge had passed the order. That power is still available with the learned District Judge. No interference is hence called for with the order of learned Additional District Judge. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel then submitted that the Tribunal has made observations that the High Court can deal with the matter as the appeal does not lie before the Tribunal under S. 29-A. It is difficult to agree with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal. S. 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act completely bars the jurisdiction of the High Courts with regard to matters covered by that provision. The relevant provision is S. 29 of the Act which provides for transfer of pending suits. The learned Additional District Judge was right in observing that the application for setting aside ex parte decree should have been filed before the Tribunal. If that application succeeds the suit would be deemed to have been pending on the relevant date. S. 29 provides for automatic transfer of pending suits. ( 8 ) NO such prayer appears to have been made before the Tribunal. In any case, as this Court cannot sit in appeal over the order of the Tribunal, the petition must fail. ( 9 ) IN the premise the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .