not sufficient to take away jurisdiction of a Court, if it is otherwise vested in it. In the present case, the party opposing the transfer order has again approached the High Court under section 24 of the C.P.C which does not involve the point of jurisdiction but that of procedural remedy. In the case of Darshan Singh (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court while agreeing to the decision rendered in Dushyant Kumar & Ors Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation held that Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act being Civil Court was amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 CPC and that the Tribunal was a court subordinate to the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in the case of Meeta Agarwal (supra) in which the learned Single Judge while referring judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a petition under Section 24 CPC is maintainable even without an order of dismissal of such petition by the District Court being questioned either under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the Larger Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shivpal Singh (Supra) held that the order of the District Judge passed on an application under Section 24 CPC being revisable, the constitutional remedy under Article 227, though not barred, may not be invoked on the sound principle of the availability of an equally efficacious statutory alternative remedy under Section 115 CPC. In the case of Babu Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Court held that the order of the District Judge passed on an application under Section 24 CPC being revisable, the constitutional remedy under Article 227, through
