( 1 ) THIS case is coming up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge Sri Justice M. H. S. Ansari as per the order dated 13. 08. 1996 on the question as to the jurisdiction of the Vacation Civil Judge to entertain petitions under the A. P. Tenancy Act and the further question whether the orders passed by the Vacation Civil Judge could have been set aside by the District Judge in appeal under Section 16 (2) of the A. P. Tenancy Act when an appeal would lie only to the High Court.

( 2 ) THE facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Revision, are that the main Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of india seeking to assail the orders passed by the learned District Judge, ananthapur in I. A. No. 174 of 1996 in A. T. A. No. 1 of 1996. The petitioners and the respondents 5 and 6 filed a petition under Section 10 of the andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act. Along with the said petition, an interlocutory application was filed for grant of ex parte temporary injunction. As the Courts were closed for Summer Recess, the said petition was filed before the Vacation Civil judge, who granted an ex parte injunction in favour of the petitioners. However, the respondents filed an appeal in A. T. A. No. 1 of 1996 before the District Judge, Anantapur and the district Judge by orders dated 10. 07. 1996 in I. A. No. 174 of 1996, granted stay of the operation of the injunction on the sole ground that the vacation Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to pass orders in Tenancy matters. It would be convenient to extract the said order in its entirety, which reads as under:"heard both sides. The Vacation Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to pass orders in Tenancy matters. Hence, the order is illegal. In the circumstances stay of operation of the order is granted. Petition allowed. "

( 3 ) THE real controversy centers around the point is whether the special Officer cum District Munsif is a persona designata and whether the vacation Civil Judge, would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 10 of the Tenancy Act and pass any orders thereon during vacations and whether the appellate authority constituted under the tenancy Act has jurisdiction to entertain an Appeal against an order of the vacation Civil Judge. In V. RAMA RAO v. K. BALA KOTAIAH, 1985 (2) ALT 276. a learned single Judge of this Court held that:"an appeal against the orders of the Vacation Civil Judge shall lie only to the High Court and that by an appointment of a Vacation Civil Judge, the power exercisable by the concerned Presiding Officer of the Court stands transferred to the Vacation Civil Judge by virtue of the deeming provisions under sub-section (5) of Section 32 of the A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972". This view was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in REV. T. ANANTHAM vs. P. C. BENJAMIN, 1991 (2) ALT 572.

( 4 ) THE controversy, however is whether the Special Officer-cum- district Munsif, who is the authority under Section 10 of the Tenancy Act is a persona designata or a Civil Court and whether the Civil Vacation judge would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 10 of the Tenancy Act which if the Courts were in Vacation. In c. RAMACHANDRA REDDY vs. S. ASWARTHANARAYANA, 1993 (1) ALT 585 a single Judge of this Court, while considering whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to proceedings before the Special officer-cum-District Munsif to extend time beyond the prescribed period of limitation for filing an application to set aside the ex parte or default order, held as follows:"since the Special Officer is not a Civil Court as discussed earlier, though manned by an officer of a judicial cadre, the Limitation Act had no application to the proceedings before him. . . ".

( 5 ) IN MURAMALLA AMMANNARAJU vs. BABBA seetaratnam, 1993 (3) ALT 221 (D. B.) the following observations are made:"it must be noted here itself that prior to the amendment of the A.