JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — The claimant in a claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act has filed this application under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for transferring Misc. Case No. 25(C) of 1992 filed by him before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balasore, to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, for trial and disposal, mainly on the ground that it would be convenient for him to prosecute the matter at Cuttack, having regard to his condition of health. 2. On the assertions made in the application under Sec. 24 of the Code which have not been rebutted, prima facie, I feel that a case has been made out for transfer of the case. However, I am unable to accede to such prayer for transfer in exercise of power under Sec. 24 of the Code, as according to me, the Claims Tribunal not being a “Court subordinate” to the High Court, within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code, such an application is not maintainable and the remedy, if any, of the petitioner is to approach the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1979 ACJ 205 (State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi and others) and 1983 ACJ 123 (Bhagwati Devi and others v. M/s. L.S. Goel and others). The first decision of the Supreme Court related to question of applicability of Order 33 of the Code to claim applications filed before the Claims Tribunal. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed as follows : “....... The reasoning of the High Court in holding that Order XXXIII will apply to tribunals which have the trappings of the Civil Court finds our approval. We affirm the decision.” I do not find anything directly or indirectly laid down in the said decision to hold that a Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is a “Court subordinate” to the High Court for the purpose of applying the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Code. The other decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 ACJ 123, however, on the face of it appears to be supporting the contention of the petitioner, though on closer scrutiny, in my opinion, is inapplicable. The other decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 ACJ 123, however, on the face of it appears to be supporting the contention of the petitioner, though on closer scrutiny, in my opinion, is inapplicable. In the said decision, it was observed : “In view of the observations of this Court in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi, 1979 ACJ 205 (SC), we are of the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure......” (Emphasis supplied) In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court purported to exercise its power under Sec. 25 of the Code which in the first flush of reading may appear to be akin to provisions contained in Section 24. However, on closer scrutiny, it appears that there is a significant difference in the sense that while under Sec. 24, the expression “a Court subordinate” has been used, in Section 25 of the Code, the expression “any Civil Court” has been incorpo¬rated. As already noticed, in earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1979 ACJ 205, it was observed that the Claims Tribunal had all the trappings of the Civil Court and in the context of Section 25 of the Code, following the said observa¬tion, it was observed that the Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 25 of the Code. The question whether a Claims Tribunal is a “Court subordinate” to the High Court for the purpose of Section 24 was not before the Supreme Court. 4. The expression “Court subordinate” has been used by the Legislature not only in Section 24, but also in Section 115 of the Code. It appears that in the context of Section 25, the expression “Civil Court” has been utilised with a view to give wider jurisdiction, whereas, the expression “Court subordinate” as contained in Section 115 or Section 24 of the Code has neces¬sarily a limited connotation. It is well-known that when the same expression is used by the Legislature in the same Act at different places, ordinarily, the same meaning is to be ascribed to the expression given. All the High Courts are almost of the unaminous view that a Claims Tribunal is not a “Court” but a “persona designata”. It is well-known that when the same expression is used by the Legislature in the same Act at different places, ordinarily, the same meaning is to be ascribed to the expression given. All the High Courts are almost of the unaminous view that a Claims Tribunal is not a “Court” but a “persona designata”. At least, so far as this Court is concerned, it has been well-settled that a Claims Tribunal is not a “Court subordinate” to High Court, but a “persona designata” not amena¬ble to the civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 115 of the Code. The said Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1977 (1) CWR 103 [The Orissa Co-operative Insurance Company (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) v. Subhasini Pradhan and others] wherein it has been observed that a Claims Tribunal is a persona designata and is not a “Court subordinate” to the High Court and is not subjected to civil revisional juris¬diction, is still holding the field for over two decades. The meaning ascribed to the expression “Court subordinate” in the said decision in the context of Section 115 is also applicable to Section 24 of the Code, as the same expression “Court subordi¬nate” has been used. It cannot be said that the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 ACJ 123, has the effect of over¬ruling either expressly or impliedly the Division Bench decision of this Court. The Division Bench decision which has held the field for such a long period should be followed in applying the doctrine of stare decisis. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the application under Sec. 24 of the Code is not maintainable. Accordingly, I reject the said application albeit, very reluctantly. There will be no order as to costs. Needless to point out that since the application is rejected on the ground of maintainability, it would be open to the petitioner to approach this Court by filing an appropriate application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Application rejected.