1. The question urged for a decision in this petition at the instance of petitioner is whether, when a Subordinate Judge's Court is established in any District at a place other than the place where the District Court is stationed and appeals from decrees or orders of the Munsiff's Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Subordinate Judge's Court may be preferred in such Subordinate Judge's Court, an appeal could be preferred in the District Court from an order passed by the court of Munsiff situated within the jurisdiction of such Subordinate Judge's Court? The issue arose in the matter of C.M.A. No. 10 of 2010 arising from an order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff, Sulthan Bathery in O.S.No.162 of 2010 and filed by the respondents in the court of learned District Judge, Wayanad at Kalpetta. Petitioner is a temple committee and alleged that respondents are making unauthorised attempts to take over the temple and seeking relief against that, instituted the suit. Learned Munsiff granted an order of temporary injunction. Respondents took up the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Wayanad, at Kalpetta with an application to condone the delay (I.A.No.363 of 2010). Before the learned District Judge petitioner contended that the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal since the court of Subordinate Judge is established at Sulthan Bathery and is empowered to hear appeals arising from the orders and decrees passed by the court of Munsiff, Sulthan Bathery. It is the grievance of petitioner that though arguments were addressed on competency of the District Court to entertain the appeal, without answering that question learned District Judge proceeded to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Ext.P5, order dated 13.10.2010 on I.A.No.363 of 2010 is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner has invited my attention to Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts & Small Cause Courts Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") and contended that in view of the said provision and since the court of Subordinate Judge is established at Sulthan Bathery with power to hear appeals from orders and decrees arising from the court of Munsiff, Sulthan Bathery, the District Court should not and could not have entertained the C.M. Appeal and condoned the delay. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Kunjamma v. George (1986 KLT 141). Learned counsel in fairness has brought to my notice the decision of another Division Bench in Vijayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan (2009 (2) KLT 939) where according to the learned counsel, without noticing the earlier Division Bench decision the Division Bench has taken a contra view. Learned counsel for respondent contends that Section 13(1) of the Act only enabled the court of Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery to entertain appeals from orders and decrees of the court of Munsiff, Sulthan Bathery and that provision did not divest the District Judge from entertaining the C.M. Appeal.

2. Section 13 of the Act reads as under:

"Appellate Jurisdiction of District Court and Subordinate Judge's Court.- (1) Appeals from the decrees and order of a Munsiff's Court and where the amount, or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed two lakhs rupees from the original decrees and orders of a Subordinate Judge's Court shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the District Court :

Provided that whenever a Subordinate Judges Court is established in any District at a place other than the place where the District Court is stationed, appeals from the decrees or orders of the Munsiff's Courts within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Subordinate Judge's Court may be preferred in such Subordinate Judge's Court :

Provided further that the District Court may remove to itself from time to time appeals so preferred and dispose of them itself or may, subject to the orders of the High Court, refer any appeals from the decrees and orders of Munsiff's C