Judgment :- Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted by the provisions contained under S.79 of the Insolvency Act II of 1956 in the matter of challenge against an order passed in an insolvency proceedings is the question coming up for decision in this civil revision petition. 2. Petitioner in I.A.2794/91, appellant in C.M.A. 101/91 and plaintiff in O.S.996/91 is the revision petitioner. A settlement deed No. 2136/1985 of the Kunnamkulam Sub Registry had been executed in favour of the petitioner by her husband settling on her the plaint schedule properties. This settlement deed had been annulled at the instance of the 1st respondent in an Insolvency Proceedings No. 13 of 1985 initiated against the petitioner's husband under order dated 16-8-91. The petitioner contending that the above order is not binding on her as she was not a party in I.P. 13/85 filed the present suit for injunction preventing respondent No.1 from taking any step in I.P. 13/ 85 of Sub Court, Thrissur for dispossessing the petitioner from the plaint schedule property. The interim relief sought in I.A.2794/91 is also for the same effect. The courts below dismissed the interim application on the ground that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed in I.P.13/85, she should challenge the same by filing an appeal under S.79 of the Insolvency Act and not by filing a separate suit. 3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the remedy by way of a civil suit available to the petitioner is not barred by any provision of the Insolvency Act and therefore the, courts below have committed a grave error in not granting her interim relief on the ground that her remedy is by way of filing an appeal under S.79 of the Insolvency Act. It is true that there is no specific provision in the Insolvency Act by which the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted. But Insolvency Act is a special statute. Rights and liabilities are created by the provisions of the above statute and special procedure is also provided therein. It is not that all the civil courts having jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under the Insolvency Act. S.3 provides that the District Courts shall be the Courts having jurisdiction under this Act. But Insolvency Act is a special statute. Rights and liabilities are created by the provisions of the above statute and special procedure is also provided therein. It is not that all the civil courts having jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under the Insolvency Act. S.3 provides that the District Courts shall be the Courts having jurisdiction under this Act. But it is open to the Government by notification in the Gazette, invest any Court subordinate to a District Court with jurisdiction in any class of cases and any Court so invested shall within the local limits of its jurisdiction have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court under the Act. Provisions contained in S.47 shows that the court having insolvency jurisdiction has the power to decide all questions arising in insolvency. Detailed provisions regarding the appeal to be filed are seen under S.79 of the Act which reads as follows: 79. Appeals: - (1) The debtor, any creditor, the receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to a District Court may appeal to the District Court and the order of the District Court upon such appeal shall be final: Provided that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in any appeal decided by the District Court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect there to as it thinks fit: Provided, further, that any such person aggrieved by a decision of the District Court on appeal from a decision of a Subordinate Court under S.4 may appeal to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) of S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (2) Any such person aggrieved by any such decision or order of a District Court as is specified in Schedule I, come to or made otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate court, may appeal to the High Court. (3) Any such person aggrieved by any other order made by a District Court otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate Court may appeal to the High Court by leave of the District Court or of the High Court. (3) Any such person aggrieved by any other order made by a District Court otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate Court may appeal to the High Court by leave of the District Court or of the High Court. (4) The periods of limitation for appeals to the District Court and to the High Court under this section shall be thirty days and ninety days, respectively." S.5 which deals with the general power of the court reads as follows: - "5.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court, in regard to proceedings under this Act, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction. (2) Subject as aforesaid, the High Court and the District Courts, in regard to proceedings under this Act in Courts subordinate to them, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as they respectively have and follow in regard to civil suits." 4. The above provisions would show that the power of the insolvency court under the Code of Civil Procedure is subject to the provisions of the Insolvency Act. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the courts below were justified in holding that the remedy open to the petitioner was an appeal under S.70 of the Act and not by a separate suit. 5. I am supported in my view by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Wall Mohammad v. Higan Lai (161 Indian Cases (1936) 311). The above case arose under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Their Lordships took the view that Provincial Insolvency Act is a special law and in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary the Code of Civil Procedure cannot limit or otherwise affect the provisions of the Insolvency Act. It was also held that where an Insolvency Act specifically provides for an appeal and revision in a particular manner any action taken under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be in contravention of the provisions of the Insolvency Act. 6. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court also in C. Venugopa-lachariar v. Chunnilal Sowcar (I.L.R.1940 Mad. 935 (1926). 6. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court also in C. Venugopa-lachariar v. Chunnilal Sowcar (I.L.R.1940 Mad. 935 (1926). A Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that where an order annulling an adjudication has been passed under S.43(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920), it was not open to the Insolvency Court to set aside the order under the provisions of Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code. The insolvent should resort to the definite remedy prescribed by S.10(2) of the Act and cannot apply under Order IX of the Civil Procedure by virtue of the provisions of S.5 of the Act which provides that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are to be applied subject to the provisions of the Act. 7. This court had occasion to consider a question whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in matters coming under the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1969 in Kunjappan v. Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Inspector (1987 (1) KLT 633). It was held that even before the introduction of S.17(A) barring the jurisdiction of the civil courts, the Act being a self-contained code in the matter of determination of the liability of the employer under S.3, jurisdiction of the civil court should be held to be necessarily excluded. 8. From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner being a person aggrieved by. the order in IP. 13/85 wherein the settlement deed No.2136/85 executed in her favour was annulled, her remedy is to file an appeal under S.79 of the Insolvency Act. Since the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case, she is not entitled for an interim order of injunction in the suit. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed.