( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the judgment in C. M. A. No. 2 of 1996 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, Anantapur,

( 2 ) THE suit O. S. No. 271 of 1996 was filed for the injunction by the tenant seeking direction to restrain the land-lord from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land which is alleged to have been leased out to the alleged representative of the petitioner for the purpose of establishing petrol pump. The trial Court after considering rival contentions, granted injunction as prayed for. The land-lord preferred C. M. A. No. 2 of 1996 before the Vacation Civil Judge, anantapur and the same was disposed of in favour of the appellant.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the judgment passed in the said C. M. A. is a nullity and without jurisdiction. The Sub judge Anantapur was acting as Civil vacation Judge. The trial Court which granted injunction in favour of the tenant was also Sub-Judge. Therefore, the appeal ought not to have been entertained and disposed of by another Sub-Judge acting as Civil vacation Judge. This according to him is contrary to Section 17 of Civil Courts Act and section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of this contention he relied on a division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in T. Anantham vs. P. C. Benjamin (1) 1991 (II) ALT 572 (DB ). In this case the scope of Sections 32, 5 and 6 read with section 17 of the Civil Courts Act, 1972 came up for consideration. The Bench held that the order passed by the Vacation Civil judge in another Interlocutory Application in a civil suit which has to be instituted in the Court of District Munsif but for the vacation is appealable only to the High court even though Courts are reopened after vacation by that time. The learned counsel strongly relied upon the observation of the Bench which reads as follows:"in recognition of the principle that the very term appeal envisages an appeal to a higher authority from one which has passed the original order, it is in the fitness of things that sub-section (6) provides for such an appeal to be entertained by the High Court". According to the counsel, if appeal is to be preferred it should be to a higher authority. In this case, the appeal is preferred to the sub-Judge who is acting as Vacation Civil judge. Therefore, another Sub-Judge cannot exercise power over the order of equivalent Officer (Sub-Judge) in this case. I am unable to agree with his submission.

( 5 ) THE provisions of Civil Courts Act are quoted clear on this aspect. At this juncture, it is useful to reproduce Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 :"notwithstanding anything in this Act in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the high Court may or the duration of the adjournment of any District Court in summer, appoint for such District Court a vacation Civil Judge not below the rant of a District Judge or the Government may, after consultation with the High Court so appoint a Vacation Civil Judge not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge". It is clear that this section starts with non obstante clause. Under sub-section (1) of section 32, the Government may after consultation with the High Court so appoint the Vacation Civil Judge not below the rank of Sub-Judge. In this case, this procedure is followed and the learned counsel did not dispute with this aspect. When the sub-Judge is appointed as Vacation Judge, section 32 (2) (b) envisages that the jurisdiction of the Vacation Civil Judge shall extend to all suits, appeals and other proceedings pending in, or cognizable by, any Court (whether a District Court, a court of Subordinate Judge or a Court of District munsif) in the district concerned when such court is adjourned for summer vacation. Sub-section (5) of Section 32 makes it clear that on the reopening of the District