MURLIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is seeking a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash all the orders passed in insolvency Case No. 14/1982 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH. No. IX ). ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. Paras Jain regarding the maintainability of this Writ Petition. Mr. Jain conceded that the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, is a Court subordinate to High Court, though a revision petition would lie under Section 115 C. P. C. ; nevertheless he maintained that a Writ petition would be maintainable and is not barred. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed an application under Section 6 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 inter alia praying that the petitioner be adjudicated as an insolvent and the property of the petitioner may be taken in Court custody. Those proceedings are pending in the Court-below and mr. Jain submitted that it is at the stage of recording of evidence. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for an interim order staying all further proceedings. The consistent view taken by this court in matters arising fro. m subordinate Court is that the aggrieved party should file a revision petition under Section 115 C. P. C. See the following Cases :- (1) Krishnaji Venkatesh Shirodkar v. Gurupad Sivaram, ILR (Karnataka) 1978 (2) 1585 (FB) (2) Thoti Muniswamy v. Hanumakka, W. P. 8347 of 1986 and (3) KR Prabhakar v. P Srinivasulu, 1984 (1) KLJ 448 in all the above cases arising out of different enactments this Court has held that the orders passed either by the District Court or by District Judge are amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. Similar is the view expressed in W. P. No. 20197/1984, Kittamma v. Lakshminarasappa. That being the consistent view of the matter of this Court, I am not prepared to accept the contention of Sri Paras Jain that a Writ is maintainable to quash the proceedings or to correct the orders of any Court, which is subordinate to this Court. However, Mr. Jain cited a few decisions. In Ramasubba Sastry v. Official Receiver, AIR 1963 Mys. 257 on which reliance is placed by mr. Jain, the cases were filed as Civil Revision petitions and not as Writ Petitions. Therefore that judgment is of no assistance. Similarly in A. T. P. Shivachandra v. Suvarna Silk House, AIR 1971 Mys. However, Mr. Jain cited a few decisions. In Ramasubba Sastry v. Official Receiver, AIR 1963 Mys. 257 on which reliance is placed by mr. Jain, the cases were filed as Civil Revision petitions and not as Writ Petitions. Therefore that judgment is of no assistance. Similarly in A. T. P. Shivachandra v. Suvarna Silk House, AIR 1971 Mys. 255 the Court was considering a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 75 (2) of the P.. Act. It has no bearing on the point in issue. Mr. Jain placed strong reliance on State of MP v. Babulal, AIR 1977 SC 1718 . That was a case, wherein a compromise decree was passed, which had the effect of transferring land, in utter contravention of Section 165 (6) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. In those circumstances, Supreme Court held that High Court should have quashed the decree in Writ proceedings. As mentioned above, City Civil Court was not wanting jurisdiction to deal with insolvency Proceedings, therefore, the above ruling has no relevance. In Hukumchand Shyam Lal v. Union of India, AIR1976 SC 789 , (1976 )2 SCC128 , [1976 ]2 SCR1060 the Court was dealing with the orders passed by the administrator under the Telegraph Act. Pending proceedings of subordinate Court was not the subject matter of the Writ Petition. If is not as though, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition. What was canvassed was that certain facts which give the jurisdiction to the Court to deal with the Insolvency petition are not found. In other words, while the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter, the Court has not followed a particular procedure and has not examined certain essential facts which are required to be examined before registering the insolvency Petition. This may be a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction; but it cannot be said that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as such. In this view of the matter. I am not persuaded to accept the view of Sri Paras Jain that this petition is maintainable to quash the proceedings. ( 4 ) I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is rejected.