Judgment :- This is an appeal preferred by the defendants in OS 12/94 against the order in IA.1413/94 dated 21-9-1995, on the files of District Court, Kottayam. The interim application is to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants, dealers of anyone from passing off or allowing or enabling others to pass or their goods or business as the goods or business of the petitioners by manufacture, sale or publicity of the respondents business using one or combination with any other trade name, the words 'Royal Coffee' or 'Royal Tea' or any other words or trade name which is in any way identical with or deceptively similar to the petitioner's trade mark 'Royal Coffee' and 'Royal Tea' pending final disposal of the suit. The court below granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. When the matter came up for admission, the plaintiffs who had filed caveat in the proceedings raised a preliminary objection and contended that this appeal should be heard by a learned single judge of this Court by virtue of Sec. 3(13)(b) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 as amended by Act 6 of 1966. The counsel for the respondents contended that, in the suit the valuation for the purpose of court fee is Rs. 1,01,000/- and the relief of injunction is valued as Rs. 1,000/-therefore, it is contended that, the impugned order being passed in an injunction application, the jurisdictional value is less than Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of injunction, and hence, it is to be heard by a learned single Judge. Powers of Single judge are stated in Section 3 of the Act and the relevant portion of Section 3(13) (b) reads as follows: "From an original decree or order in any suit or other proceedings, where the amount or value of the subject matter of .the suit or other proceeding does not. exceed one lakh rupees." From the above section it is clear that if the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit or other proceedings does not exceed one lakh rupees, the appeal against such an order is to be heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. exceed one lakh rupees." From the above section it is clear that if the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit or other proceedings does not exceed one lakh rupees, the appeal against such an order is to be heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The petitioner's counsel contended that the value of the subject matter of the suit alone shall be considered for the purpose of section 3(13)(b) of the Act and the valuation given for the injunction application is irrelevant and it is given only for the purpose of showing the extent of the reliefs sought for in the application. We do not think that such an interpretation is correct in view of section 3(13)(b). The amount or value of the subject matter of the 'suit' or 'other proceedings' is to be considered separately. Adopting that interpretation it is clear that for the purpose of valuation of injunctory relief .sought for before the lower court was less than Rs. 1,00,000/- That being so, any appeal filed against such order is to be dealt with by a Single Judge of this Court. Under Section 4 of the Act the powers of the Bench of Two Judges are mentioned and it is clearly mentioned that except those coming under section 3 of the Act shall be dealt with by the Bench of Two Judges. Therefore, we hold that the present CMA being an appeal against the order passed in a proceeding being less than one lakh rupees, is to be heard by a Single Judge of this Court. Office will place the matter before a Single Judge tomorrow.