K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 6-11-2003 made in Application No. 3 of 2003 on the file of Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, bangalore Division, Bangalore (in short, 'the KWT), dismissing the application seeking cancellation of the election held to the Managing committee of Shah Inayath and Jamia Mosque, Gouribidanur Taluk on 5-1-2003. ( 2 ) THE respondent 1 is represented by Sri D. L. N. Rao, learned counsel. Respondent 2 has been deleted. Respondents 3 to 23 are represented by Sri Prabhuling K. Navadagi. ( 3 ) HEARD arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties on the point of maintainability of the revision petition. ( 4 ) SRI Tanveer Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that though the revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 83 (9) of the Wakf act, 1995 (in short, 'the Act'), it may be treated as revision petition filed under Section 83 (9) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is : whether revision is maintainable as against final order of the kwt ? the applicants filed an application under Section 83 (2) of the Act before the KWT challenging the election held to the Managing committee of Shah Inayath and Jamia Mosque, Gauribidanur on 5-1-2003 and sought for re-election before the Tribunal. The application was rejected by the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the impugned order. The KWT has held that the application was not maintainable for the reliefs of cancellation of election and holding re-election. For the purpose of answering the point viz. , as to the maintainability of the revision petition, it is useful to refer to sub-sections (7) and (9) of section 83 of the Act, which read as under :"83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc.- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6 ). . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties to the. application and it shall have the force of a decree made by a Civil Court. (8 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal: provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit". ( 6 ) KEEPING in view the language used in sub-section (7) of Section 83 of the Act that the decision of the KWT shall final and binding and sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act says that no appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise given or made by thr kwt, the petitioners instead of filing a writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court as provided in the proviso to sub-section (9) of section 83 of the Act, have filed the revision petition. The Larger Bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Another v M/s. Mysore paper Mills Limited, Bhadravathi, Shimoga District and Others, examined the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court with reference to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and other enactments viz. The Larger Bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Another v M/s. Mysore paper Mills Limited, Bhadravathi, Shimoga District and Others, examined the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court with reference to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and other enactments viz. , the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in relation to Motor Accidents Claims and karnataka Education Act, 1983 in relation to Karnataka Appellate tribunal Act, 1976 has held that the Tribunals are not subordinate to high Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the CPC and the Tribunals are excluded from exercising jurisdiction over ordinary Civil Court by separate enactments. The orders passed by them are not amenable to the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. The above finding of the larger Bench of this Court in relation to Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, the Educational Appellate Tribunal and the Railway Claims tribunal is squarely applicable to the KWT established under the Act. The proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act cannot be construed as conferring revisional power on the High Court. In other words, it reiterates the jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I answer the point raised by me in the negative. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons said supra, I pass the following order: the revision petition is rejected as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioners to file a writ petition. No costs. --- *** --- .