K.L. Bapna, J.
1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Judge of the Tribunal in proceedings under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, (No. LXX of 1951)
2. The petitioner Munshi Ram and certain other persons filed a claim for the recovery of Rs. 4,373/2/6 against Hukam Singh and another before the Tribunal at Ganganagar. This was dealt with by the Presiding Officer of the Court of Civil Judge, Suratgarh, who was appointed Tribunal for the purposes of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act. The learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed the claim by order of 14th December, 1954, The petitioner Munshi Ram and others have come in revision.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that no proper issues were framed, and that a comparison of the account books of both the parties in the suit showed that while all the debit and credit items entered into the books of the petitioners were so entered in the account books of the respondents, certain other entries were made in the latter's account books, which reduced the amount of claim made by the petitioners. It was urged that the burden of proof lay on the respondents to prove that certain items which were not admitted by the petitioners had been properly debited to them.
4. I have no doubt in my mind that the case has been dealt with in a very slipshod manner by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. No issues were framed and no examination of the parties was made under Order X, C. P. C., which would have narrowed down the matters of dispute between the parties. It is, however, not possible to interfere as the Tribunal is not a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and for that reason the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be availed of.
A perusal of the scheme of the Act shows that the matters mentioned in the Act were to be dealt with by the Tribunals and not by ordinary courts, and while Section 40 of the Act provided for appeals to the High Court from the decisions of the Tribunals, that right was restricted where the subject-matter of the appeal was less than Rs. 5,000/-. In the present case the subject-matter of the appeal was the sum of Rs. 4,373/2/6, and what the petitioner wants by this revision is that a decree for that amount should be passed.
5. Learned counsel urged that proper procedure not having been followed by the Tribunal, this Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. The present is a revision under Section 115 C.P.C., and must be dismissed. If the petitioner is advised that he is able to seek relief under Article 227 of the Constitution, he is at liberty to make that application.
6. The revision is dismissed. There will be noorder as to costs.