M AMMANNARAJU Vs. B SEETARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the Judgment of the learned District Judge, at Rajahmundry in A.T.A. No. 15 of 1992 allowing the same and granting interim injunction against the revision petitioner in I.A.No. 365 of 1991 in A.T.C. No. 31/1991.

(2.) The first respondent had taken a preliminary objection before the learned Single Judge of this Court contending that since the proceedings arose out of Andhra Tenancy Act, revision is not maintainable under Section 115 C.P.C. The learned Single Judge N.D. Patnaik, J., in his order dated 5-3-1993 observed as follows:-

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the first respondent Sri M.V. Durga Prasad that the term 'District Judge' is not synonymous to the term 'District Court' and when appeal lies under the Tenancy Act to the District Judge, he is only appointed as persona designata under the Act as appellate authority under the Act, but the appeal does not lie to the Court of District Judge, which is subordinate to the High Court, and the revision, therefore, does not lie under Section 115 C.P.C. To substantiate his contention, he referred to the various relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act and Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, which will be dealt with at appropriate point of time. The learned Counsel further contended that as per the scheme of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, though judicial officers are appointed to adjudicate the disputes under the Act, but they were appointed as persona designata and as such they are not vested with the jurisdiction that is conferred on a Civil Court He drew our attention to Sec.16 (1) of the said A.P. (Andhra area) Tenancy Act, which provides that -