ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.
2. This revision has been filed from the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal dated 16-1-1993 for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. The revisionalist has to establish the necessary ingredients of Section 115 that the order impugned has been passed by the Civil Court subordinate to High Court and that no appeal did lay from that order to the High Court and thirdly that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error coming either under the categories of cases under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 115 and if the order is allowed to stand and not set aside, injustice would be caused and irreparable injury would be caused. So the first ingredient that has to be decided is whether the order is passed by a Civil Court. I have already considered this matter in the case of Hungund Taluka Banjara Vid-hyavardhaka Sangka v Rachappa Chanamallappa Chittawadagi and Another, after duly considering all the questions whether the Educational Appellate Tribunal can be said to be a Court? Looking to the whole scheme under the Constitution as contained in Chapter V of Part 6 on one hand and Part 14-A in particular Articles 323A and 323B which maintains a distinction between the two sets of institutions-Courts and Tribunals as well as the language of Sections 8, 10(2) proviso and Section 11 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975, this Court has opined that where the appeal did He to the Tribunal Section 11 also debars exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Court, in such a state of affairs of law and scheme, the Tribunal cannot be considered to be Civil Court. It is also taken into consideration Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that for the purpose of Civil Procedure Code which includes Section 115 also the District Court i.e. the Principal Civil Court of District is subordinate to High Court and every Court of civil jurisdiction or every Civil Court subordinate to District Court as well as Small Causes Court is to be taken to be a Court subordinate to High Court and District Court in view of its specific declaration to that effect under Section 3, the Tribunal cannot be taken to be the Court for the purpose of Section 115. To all these provisions particularly to Sections 8 and 11 and scheme of the Constitution as referred to above, the attention of the Hon’ble Judges of the Full Bench in the case of M/s. Excellent Educational Society and Others v Smt. J. Shahida Begum and Others , has not been drawn, which clearly maintains a distinction between the Courts and the Tribunals. As such, the Full Bench’s decision suffers from what is understood to be judgment or decision per incuriam and the decision which is per incuriam it has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of A.R. Antuley v R.S. Nayak and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Gurnam Kaur, have become denude of its binding precedential value and it may not operate as a binding precedent. Considering the above provisions,
this Court has held that the Tribunal cannot be considered to be a Court for the purpose of the Code and Section 115 and as the Tribunal is not a Court, the revision under Section 115 is not maintainable.
In view of the above decision of this Court in the case of Hungund Taluka Banjara Vidhyavardhaka Sangha, supra, this revision petition is also dismissed herewith as not maintainable. Nothing has been decided on the merits of the case. It is kept open to the parties to avail any remedy if this as has been advised by their learned Counsel to be available subject to decision.