The right to appeal against judgments and orders of a Single Judge is conferred by Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, and the appeal would lie from any order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of his original jurisdiction.

BHASKARAN, J.:- The appeal is against an order passed by the Vacation Judge of this Court on C. M. P. No. 6361 of 1975 on the file of this Court in O. S. No. 7 of 1975 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod. C. M. P. No. 1372 of 1975 is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the above appeal. Though C. M. P. No. 1372 of 1975 alone was posted for hearing today, as a preliminary objection was raised in regard to the maintainability of the appeal itself by Shri K. P. V. B. Ejman, the counsel for the respondents, by agreement of the parties the appeal also was taken up for hearing and disposal along with it.

2. Regarding facts leading to the filing of the appeal and the petition for condoning the delay the submission of Shri N.N. Sugunapalan, the counsel for the appellant, could be briefly stated as follows: Under the impugned order, the Vacation Judge of this Court had appointed a Receiver for the properties described in the schedule to the petition. The order was passed ex parte, though the appellant, as defendant in the suit, had entered appearance in the Court of the Munsiff of Kasaragod as early as on 5th February, 1975, and he came to know about it only when the Receiver went to the place for taking possession of the properties. He made an application in this Court for the grant of certified copy of the order; but did not succeed in getting it as he was told that the records had by then been despatched to the Munsiff's Court. He made an application in the Court of the Munsiff, but then also he did not succeed as he was informed that Court could not grant the copy of an order passed by this Court. It is thereafter he filed the appeal along with two petitions (1) C. M. P. No. 1372 of 1975 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and (2) C. M. P. No. 1373 of 1975 for a direction to the Munsiff of Kasaragod to grant him a certified copy of the order on C. M. P. No. 6361 of 1975 passed by this Court on 29th April 1975, under Section 151, C.P.C. In the meanwhile on memo No. 1 of 1975 filed by the Receiver, the learned Munsiff passed the following order:

"Appointment of a Receiver is already done by the High Court. It is not open for the defendant to challenge the order in this Court. Hence memo allowed. Receiver is directed to sell the rights by public auction."

3. Formulating his objections to the maintainability, Shri Ejman submitted: (1) By and under Section 4 (2) (a) of the Kerala High Court Act, decrees and orders coming under Section 3 of the said Act are excluded from the powers of a Bench of two Judges, and therefore, an order passed by a Single Judge in exercise of the powers under S.3 (11) of the said Act is not appealable to a Bench of two Judges, and (2) appeal, if any, should be only to the Subordinate Judge of Kasaragod as provided in Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act, inasmuch as the power exercised by the Vacation Judge is that of the Civil Court.

4. Let us now notice the relevant provisions in regard to appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure, Kerala Civil Courts Act, and the Kerala High Court Act. Appeals from original decrees and orders of the Civil Courts are governed by the provisions of Sections 96 to 112, falling within Part VII, Order XLI, and Order XLIII C. P. C. Right to appeal against an original decree, and an order, passed by a Civil Court is as conferred on the parties under the provisions of Section 96 and Section 104, C. P. C. respectively. The Courts to which such appeals would lie are as provided in Section 13, falling within Part III dealing with jurisdiction of the Kerala Civil Courts Act. Rights to appeal from judgments and orders of a Single judge of the High Court is as provided in Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

5. Sri Ejman's arguments that because of the provisions contained in Sec. 4 (2) (a) of the Kerala High Court Act, the appellant in the present case is without a right to appeal, appears t