Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the appellant in C. M. A. 13/82, an appeal filed under S.22 of the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Act, 1981, for short, The Act. 2. The Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection namely that the C. R. P. is not maintainable in view of the fact that the judgment sought to be revised, though delivered by the Additional District Court, cannot be said to be one delivered by a court within the meaning of the Civil Courts Act because under S.22 the District Judge who is empowered to entertain the appeal, is functioning only as persona designata. In other words the District Judge under S.22 of the Act is not discharging the functions of a court, and hence his orders are not revisable under S.115 C. P. C. The question therefore is whether the District Judge functioning under S.22 of the Act. is a court within the Civil Courts Act or functioning only as persona designata?; and if it is found that he is functioning only as a persona designata, are his orders revisable under S.115 C. P. C.? Relevant part of S.22 namely S.22(1), I shall read now: "22. Appeal.-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under S.22 may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the raw cashewnuts to which such order relates were seized, and the District Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against." Under this Section the appeal has to be addressed to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area, in which the raw cashewnuts, to which the order appealed against relates, were seized. It is further provided that the District Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the party to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. 3. The District Judge under the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957, for short The Civil Courts Act, is the Presiding Officer of the District Court. The jurisdiction of District Court is prescribed under S.11 and 12 of the Civil Courts Act. The jurisdiction under S.11 extends, subject to the provisions of Code. 3. The District Judge under the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957, for short The Civil Courts Act, is the Presiding Officer of the District Court. The jurisdiction of District Court is prescribed under S.11 and 12 of the Civil Courts Act. The jurisdiction under S.11 extends, subject to the provisions of Code. of Civil Procedure, 1908, to all original suits and proceedings of civil nature. It is the appellate jurisdiction that is prescribed under S.13. This section provides that appeals from the decrees and orders of a Munsiff's Court and where the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 25,000/- 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. As it is unnecessary to refer to the provisos of this Section to decide the issue before me, they have not been dealt with in this order. 4. On a reading of these Sections and S.22 of 'The Act' side by side, it is clear that the appeal under S.22 is entertainable only by the District Judge as persona designata and not by the District Court presided over by the District Judge. The appeal contemplated under S.13 lie to the District Court whereas the appeal under S.22 is addressed to the District Judge. That an appeal under S.22 is addressed only to the District judge as persona designata is further made clear by the provisions contained in S.24 of The Act. This section in clear terms says that the Revenue Divisional Officer or as the case may be the District Judge alone shall have jurisdiction to make orders in regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the raw cashewnuts seized under S.19. In regard to court, tribunal or authority exercising powers under other laws, even if they in the exercise of the said power, can deal with matters, the R. D. O. and the District Judge have been empowered by the Act to deal with, the said authorities have been prohibited from entertaining such matters by S.24. That means the party aggrieved by an order passed by R. D. O. under S.20 cannot challenge the same, except by filing an appeal under S.22 before the District Judge. That means the party aggrieved by an order passed by R. D. O. under S.20 cannot challenge the same, except by filing an appeal under S.22 before the District Judge. It is therefore clear that the District Judge under S.22 is functioning as a persona designata and if that be so, the judgment disposing of the appeal under S.22 cannot be said to be an order by a court within the meaning of S.115 C. P. C. It is in this background the question as to whether or not the judgment in question is revisable under S.115 C. P. C., requires to be considered. 5. The learned Government Pleader in this connection pointed out that the appeal is addressed to the District Court and not to the District Judge. The District Court therefore ought to.have rejected the appeal as not maintainable. This line of approach, suggested by the learned Government Pleader, at the first blush is attractive, but, if we go deep into the question, it can be seen that the same cannot be taken cognisance of, because as is seen from the cause title of the appeal, the appeal is one filed under S.22 of The Act. It is no doubt, true that it is addressed to the District Court and not to the District Judge. The description regarding the appellate forum in the memorandum of appeal namely "Before the District Court, Quilon" under the circumstances must be held to have occasioned due to an inadvertent mistake. Whatever that be, the District Court has entertained the proceeding as one falling under S.22 of The Act and if that be so, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the appeal should be declared to be not maintainable for the reason that it was addressed to the District Court, is liable to be rejected. I accordingly reject the same. 6. That the District Judge under S.4 of the Civil Courts Act has the power to assign any of his functions under the Civil Courts Act to an Additional District Judge appointed under S.4(1) of the said Act, is beyond dispute. The Additional District Judge in the discharge of the functions assigned to him can undoubtedly exercise all the powers of the District Judge under the Civil Courts Act. The Additional District Judge in the discharge of the functions assigned to him can undoubtedly exercise all the powers of the District Judge under the Civil Courts Act. We have already seen that the District Judge while functioning under the Civil Courts Act can exercise only that jurisdiction that is prescribed under S.11 and 13 of the said Act. The special jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge by special statutes like 'The Act' is different from the jurisdiction, the District Judge discharges under S.11 and 13 of the Civil Courts Act. The District Judge, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on him under sub-S. 2 of S.4 of The Civil Courts Act, therefore cannot assign or delegate his jurisdiction/ power under S.22 to the Additional District Judge. Here it is relevant to note that it is not the case of the Government Pleader that 'The Act' has conferred power on the District Judge to assign the power/jurisdiction conferred on him under S.22, to the Additional District Judge. 7. The above position notwithstanding the District Judge after entertaining the appeal under S.22 of The Act, has made the same over to the Additional District Judge, who by the judgment under challenge, has dismissed the appeal. The Additional District Judge under the Civil Courts Act can discharge only the functions of the District Court. 8. The Additional District Judge, in the light of what is stated above, has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. He however, treated the appeal as a regular appeal within the meaning of S.13 Civil Courts Act. It must therefore be held that the judgment under attack is one passed without jurisdiction and therefore revisable under S.115 C. P. C. In any event this court in the exercise of its power of superintendence, is bound to take note of such mistakes and set right matters; or else, this court will be aiding perpetration of injustice borough about by mistaken impression of the law applicable to the case. 9. The judgment under challenge therefore is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the District Judge, Quilon who will dispose of the same after giving the parties on opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner will be renewed from time to time until the appeal is disposed of by the District Judge. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner will be renewed from time to time until the appeal is disposed of by the District Judge. The parties if so advised, can produce fresh evidence. 10. The appeal is of the year 1982 and therefore the same requires to be disposed of without further delay. The District Judge therefore is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The C.R.P. is allowed in the manner indicated above. No costs.