PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) COMMON questions of law and facts are involved in all these revisions and they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. All these revisions arise out of similar kind of orders passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal. Therefore, to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case the facts of Civil Revision no. 83 of 2001 are referred. ( 2 ) CLAIM Petition No. 126 of 1997 was filed by Ram Babu under sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming damages for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident dated 4. 3. 1997 at about 8 p. m. , in village Kusahari near Sagar Hotel, kanpur-Lucknow Road, District Unnao, while he was travelling from Barabanki to kanpur on the pleas, inter alia, that the driver of bus No. UP 030-8281 in which the claimant was a valid passenger stopped the bus near a hotel for a break. A dispute arose in between the driver and the owner of the hotel and there was marpeet with the hotel personnel. The conductor asked the passengers to board the bus. The driver started the bus and hotel owner and its persons threw some inflammable goods on the driver through the window and as soon as the bus started it caught fire. The driver instead of stopping bus to save himself negligently and rashly speeded up the bus and the fire spread in the bus with the result that the claimant and other passengers received injuries. Number of passengers received burnt injuries and were got admitted in a government hospital and some of them were later on transferred to Lala lajpat Rai Hospital. ( 3 ) IN the claim application after the exchange of pleadings issues were struck. Issue No. 4 was treated as a preliminary issue which reads as follows: "kya vertman case me dhara 147/307/435/504 bhartiya Danda Sanhita me darj hone ke karan kshti-purti kee yachika prastut nahi ho sakti ha. Jiske parinamswaroop is nyalaya ko kshetradhikar nahi ha. Yadi ho to uska prabhav. " ( 4 ) THE Tribunal heard the arguments on the aforesaid preliminary issue and by the order under revision found that the said issue cannot be decided as a preliminary issue as it is a mixed question of fact and law. Jiske parinamswaroop is nyalaya ko kshetradhikar nahi ha. Yadi ho to uska prabhav. " ( 4 ) THE Tribunal heard the arguments on the aforesaid preliminary issue and by the order under revision found that the said issue cannot be decided as a preliminary issue as it is a mixed question of fact and law. Tribunal held that the said issue will be decided at the time of final disposal of the claim petition itself. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order the present revisions have been filed at the instance of the insurance company. ( 5 ) MR. Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the revision submitted that the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by refusing to decide the aforesaid issue as a preliminary issue. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that Tribunal has not recorded any finding as to what facts are in dispute and submitted that it was open for the Tribunal to have evidence recorded on the above issue first and then to decide the same as a preliminary issue. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the claimant opposite party submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error in refusing to decide the aforesaid issue as a preliminary issue inasmuch as the decision of the above issue necessarily requires recording of evidence. The said issue, according to him cannot be decided in isolation without recording the necessary findings of fact. Reliance has been placed by him upon a judgment of this court in case of Managing Director, unitech Ltd. v. Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, 2001 ACJ 1327 (Allahabad ). ( 7 ) STRONG reliance was placed by Mr. Goyal on a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai, AIR 2003 SC 718 , wherein in para 21 it has been held that for the purposes of disposal of the suit on the admitted facts, particularly when the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issues, no particular procedure was required to be followed and the maintainability of the suit can be adjudicated upon a preliminary issue. The issues relating to res judicata and constructive res judicata as also the maintainability of the suit, when facts are admitted, ordinarily should be decided as preliminary issues. The issues relating to res judicata and constructive res judicata as also the maintainability of the suit, when facts are admitted, ordinarily should be decided as preliminary issues. The Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations in a different facts situation, than obtaining in the present case. ( 8 ) THE contention of the insurance company is that since the driver of the bus has lodged a first information report against the owner and employees of the hotel, it cannot possibly be said that the accident in question arose out of the use of motor vehicle. By way of amendment a plea has been raised by the applicant that on the own showing of the claimant there was altercation in between the driver and the hotel owner and the bus caught fire due to outside agency for which an F.. R. under sections 147/307/435/504, Indian Penal code was lodged. On this basis plea has been raised that the accident in question is not covered under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act. ( 9 ) THE Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad, 2002 ACJ 721 (SC), considered the maintainability of a claim petition before Motor Accidents claims Tribunal in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injuries to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle and the claim is made both against the insurer, owner and driver of the motor vehicle as well as the joint tortfeasor, if a finding on hearing is reached that it is solely the negligence of joint tortfeasor and not the driver of the motor vehicle then in view of the combined reading of sections 110 and 110-A (under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) the crucial expression conferring jurisdiction upon the Claims tribunal is the accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, the application is maintainable. Once such an application is held to be maintainable and Tribunal entertains such an application, if in course of inquiry tribunal comes to a finding that it is the other joint tortfeasor connected with the accident who was responsible and not the owner or driver of the motor vehicle then "tribunal cannot be held to be denuded of its jurisdiction which it had initially. In other words, in such case also the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal would be entitled to award compensation against the other joint tortfeasor. . . In other words, in such case also the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal would be entitled to award compensation against the other joint tortfeasor. . . " ( 10 ) THE Claims Tribunal felt the necessity of recording evidence on the aforesaid plea. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, this court is of the view that no party can compel the Tribunal to decide a issue as a preliminary issue. Answer of the said issue depends upon the relevant factual findings. The ratio laid down in the case of Abdul Rahman, AIR 2003 SC 718 , is not applicable inasmuch as in the case in hand the facts are not admitted between the parties. How the accident in question took place can be decided only with reference of the evidence to be produced by the parties concerned. From the facts and pleadings as noted above it is crystal clear that the issue raised by the insurance company is not a pure question of law or jurisdiction. In such circumstances if the trial court or Claims Tribunal feels that the said issue cannot be decided as a preliminary issue, it is difficult to find any fault in such order. ( 11 ) THE other case relied upon by the learned counsel is Mitsubishi France v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. , AIR 1985 Mad 300 , wherein it has been held that when the question of jurisdiction of high Court to entertain the suit has been raised it would not be proper to decline to try the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue on the ground that it is a mixed question of law. The said ratio has been laid down with reference to Order 14, rule 2, civil Procedure Code. ( 12 ) THE proceedings before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal are not governed by the provisions of Civil Procedure code. State of Uttar Pradesh has framed u. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. Rules 209, 210, 211 and 221 of the aforesaid rules are relevant for the present purposes. It is significant to mention here that Order 14 of Civil Procedure Code has not been made applicable by State Legislature to the proceedings of the claim petitions in the state of U. P. Chapter IX of the U. P. Motor vehicles Rules deals with Claims Tribunal. It is significant to mention here that Order 14 of Civil Procedure Code has not been made applicable by State Legislature to the proceedings of the claim petitions in the state of U. P. Chapter IX of the U. P. Motor vehicles Rules deals with Claims Tribunal. Its rule 209 reads as follows: "after considering the application and the written statement and oral statements of the parties, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to frame the issues on which the right decision of claim appears to it to determine. " Rule 221 deals with the determination of issues:"after framing of issues the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may like to produce. " ( 13 ) THE said Chapter provides for method of recording evidence, local inspection, inspection of vehicle, the power of examination, etc. Certain provisions of the First schedule of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 have been made applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. They are rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30 of Order 5; Order 9; rules 3 to 10 of Order 13; rules 2 to 21 of order 16; Order 17 and rules 1 to 3 of order 23. ( 14 ) THE aforesaid provisions clearly do show the intention of the legislature to exclude the applicability of Order 14 as such which deals with settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. ( 15 ) A conjoint reading of Civil Procedure Code with rule 221 of U. P. Motor vehicles Rules, 1998 makes it crystal clear and beyond pale of any doubt that after determination of issues, Claims Tribunal shall under rule 211 record evidence and make brief memorandum of the substance of what is deposed. There is no analogous provision in the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules making it obligatory upon the Claims Tribunal to hear and decide a preliminary issue irrespective of the fact that answer to the issue is dependent on ascertainment of facts. ( 16 ) THE argument of the applicants counsel that no disputed questions of fact are involved, is incorrect. According to the claimant he received burnt injuries during the course of his travel in the bus in question which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently. According to the insurance company since the F.. ( 16 ) THE argument of the applicants counsel that no disputed questions of fact are involved, is incorrect. According to the claimant he received burnt injuries during the course of his travel in the bus in question which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently. According to the insurance company since the F.. R. under section 147, Indian Penal Code has been lodged by the driver it would take away the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to hear and decide the claim petition. Therefore, the pleadings of parties are at variance. The ratio laid down by this court in the case of Managing Director, Unitech Ltd. v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2001 acj 1327 (Allahabad), is fully applicable wherein this court confirmed the order of the Claims Tribunal refusing to decide an issue as a preliminary issue. ( 17 ) NOTHING was decided by the Claims tribunals on the merits of the case effecting the rights of parties. The impugned order does not amount to case decided. ( 18 ) THIS court is of the view that the present revision is not maintainable under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. The tribunal by the order under revision has postponed the decision of issue No. 4 to a later date, after recording the evidence of the parties. The impugned order does not amount to case decided within the meaning of section 115, Civil Procedure Code. ( 19 ) IN case of Baldev Das v. Filmistan distributors, AIR 1970 SC 406 , wherein supreme Court has held that every order of the court in the course of suit does not amount to case decided. A case can be said to be decided if the court adjudicates same rights or obligations. Every order in the suit cannot be regarded as case decided within the meaning of section 115, Civil procedure Code. Orders passed merely for the progress of proceedings are not orders deciding a case. They are steps towards the final adjudication of the case and only regulate the procedure and do not affect any right or obligation of the parties. ( 20 ) IN the case of M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapoor, AIR 1970 SC 2379, it has been held that the jurisdiction of High Court under section 115 is a limited one. ( 20 ) IN the case of M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapoor, AIR 1970 SC 2379, it has been held that the jurisdiction of High Court under section 115 is a limited one. The section is not directed against conclusion of law or fact, in which question of jurisdiction is not involved. ( 21 ) THE section empowers the High court to satisfy itself on these matters - (a) the order of the subordinate court is within jurisdiction, (b) the case is one in which the court ought to exercise the jurisdiction, (c) that in exercise of jurisdiction the court has not acted illegally,. e. , law, or with material irregularity by committing some error of procedure in the course of trial which is material that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the high Court is satisfied on these matters it has no jurisdiction to interfere because it differs with the subordinate court on question of fact or law. A distinction has to be drawn between the errors committed by subordinate courts in deciding questions of law which have relation to, or are concerned with question of jurisdiction of the said court, and errors of law which have no such relation or connection. ( 22 ) THE Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation. The Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma, 2003 ACJ 1999 (SC), has overruled the objection raised by the insurance company that the claim petition is barred by time in view of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. By sub-section (3) of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act certain limitation for filing the claim petition was prescribed which was subsequently deleted by the legislature. In that context an argument was raised by the insurance company that claim petition would be barred by time on the basis of Article 137 of Limitation act. Repealing the said argument the Apex court held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a "beneficial legislation aimed at providing the relief to victim or their families". Further its a self-contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and the award to be made. Repealing the said argument the Apex court held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a "beneficial legislation aimed at providing the relief to victim or their families". Further its a self-contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and the award to be made. Keeping the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court in mind, if the argument of learned counsel for applicant is accepted it would defeat the very object and purpose of the enactment of the Motor vehicles Act as it would cause unnecessary delay which is axiomatic presently. ( 23 ) THE proceedings before the Claims tribunal are summary in nature. Claims tribunals have been established with a view to give speedy justice to the claimants. In such matters piece-meal decision is uncalled for and ordinarily it is desirable that the claim petition should be decided by deciding all the issues simultaneously. Decision of an issue which is according to one party is a preliminary issue and essentially based on facts would necessarily entail the disposal of the claim petition as it will always be open to an aggrieved party to challenge the issue against whom it has been decided in higher court. This is what has exactly happened in the present case. It is really shocking that the claim petition is pending since 1997. Unnecessary delay of disposal of claim petition shakes the confidence of the people and also evidence becomes blurred by the passage of time. ( 24 ) THE insurance company instead of getting the dispute settled at the earliest opportunity by extending full co-operation for the speedy disposal of the claim petition has unnecessarily created hindrance by filing frivolous revision and compelled the claimants to rush to this court to defend it. ( 25 ) IN view of the above, I find no merit in the revision. ( 26 ) ALL the revisions are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 (in each revision) and Claims Tribunal is requested to hear and decide the claim petitions preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order of this court. Revisions dismissed with cost.