JUDGMENT : 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 ). 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 Courts preferred in the District Court to any Subordinate Judge's Court within the district. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply to original decrees and orders of a Subordinate Judge's Court passed after the commencement of the Kerala Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1959, notwithstanding the fact that the suits in respect of which such decrees and orders have been passed were instituted before such commencement." As per the said provision appeals from decrees and orders of the court of Munsiff and where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed 'rupees two lakhs' from the original decrees and orders of Subordinate Judge shall when such appeals are allowed by law lie to the District Court. The proviso says that when a court of Subordinate Judge 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 Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Subordinate Judge's Court 'may be preferred in such Subordinate Judge's Court'. Learned counsel for petitioner wanted me to interpret the expression "may be preferred" as meaning "shall be preferred" in the context. Such an interpretation is necessary according to the learned counsel to avoid divergent decisions. Learned counsel illustrated his argument thus: if a decree passed by the court of Munsiff is partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendant, one of them may file appeal in the court of Subordinate Judge while the other may file the appeal in the court of District Judge. If two courts happen to dispose of the appeal, divergent decisions cannot be ruled out. Hence the situation warranted the expression "may be preferred" to be understood as "shall be preferred". 3. I shall refer to the decisions referred to above. If two courts happen to dispose of the appeal, divergent decisions cannot be ruled out. Hence the situation warranted the expression "may be preferred" to be understood as "shall be preferred". 3. I shall refer to the decisions referred to above. In both the decisions question considered was whether in view of the proviso to Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 which provides for filing of revision from the order passed by the Munsiff executing the order of the Rent Controller to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the said Munsiff, such revisions are to be preferred in the Subordinate Judge's Court having jurisdiction over the area where the Munsiff's court is situated and established at a place other than the place where the District Court is stationed, or, such revisions are to be filed in the District Court itself. Referring to the expression 'ordinarily lie' occurring in the proviso Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 the Division Bench held in Kunjamma v. George that by the expression "ordinarily lie" occurring the legislature intended that the revision must be preferred to such appellate court to which appeals are usually or very often filed from the decisions of the Munsiff. In that case, impugned order was passed by the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. Usually appeals from the decisions of that court were filed in the court of Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara. Hence in the light of the expression 'ordinarily lie' occurring in the proviso to Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965, it was held that the inescapable conclusion was that revision under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 had to be preferred to the court which the appeals ordinarily lie, i.e. the court of Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara. Though not referring to the said decision, another Division Bench of this Court (in Vijayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan) took a different view and held that though, a revision may be preferred in the court of Subordinate Judge also (in cases where appeals are usually preferred from the order/decree of the court of Munsiff in such court) it could not be said that the court of District Judge had no power to entertain the revision. No doubt, so far as the issue regarding competency to file revisions under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 there appears to be some conflict between the two Division Bench decisions. No doubt, so far as the issue regarding competency to file revisions under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 there appears to be some conflict between the two Division Bench decisions. But, de hors the issue decided by the Division Benches in the said decisions the dispute involved in the present case can be resolved since I am presently not considering the application of the proviso to Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. Now the question to be decided is whether in view of Section 13(1) of the Act District Judge, Wayanad at Kalpetta could entertain C.M. Appeal which in the usual course should have been filed in the court of Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery. 4. I must bear in mind that unlike the proviso to Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 which uses the expression 'ordinarily lies' which was the subject matter of the discussion in the two Division Bench decisions referred to above, no such expression is found in Section 13 of the Act or any Sub-section or proviso thereto. Section 13 of the Act only says that appeals from decrees or orders of the court of Munsiff, and subject to the pecuniary limit from the court of Subordinate Judge shall lie to the District Court and the proviso says that when a Subordinate Judge's Court is established in any District at a place other than the place where the District Court is stationed appeals from decrees or orders of court of Munsiff within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Subordinate Judge's court "may be preferred" in the Subordinate Judge's Court. A reading of Section 13 of the Act would give the impression that the expression 'may be preferred in such Subordinate Judge's Court' only enabled such Subordinate Judge's court to entertain the appeals from the orders or decrees of the court of Munsiff within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Subordinate Judge's Court and did not divest District Court of its power to entertain appeals from orders or decrees of the court of Munsiff. The second proviso to Section 13 of the Act itself indicates that Sub-section (1) does not divest the District Court of that power. For, it expressly empowers the District Court to remove to itself any appeal preferred before the Subordinate Judge's court and dispose of the same. The second proviso to Section 13 of the Act itself indicates that Sub-section (1) does not divest the District Court of that power. For, it expressly empowers the District Court to remove to itself any appeal preferred before the Subordinate Judge's court and dispose of the same. I am unable to accept the contention that Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act took away jurisdiction of the District Court, Kalpetta to entertain appeals from the orders or decrees of Munsiff's court, Sulthan Bathery. It is also apposite to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench in Viayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan at paragraph 5 where Section 13(1) of the Act alone was considered. It was observed : "Even a cursory reading of the above quoted section will show that appeals against the decrees and orders of a Munsiff Court irrespective of valuation lie ordinarily to the District Court. But in an extraordinary situation where the Sub Court is established in a place other than the place where the District Court is stationed, appeals against the decrees and orders of the Munsiff Court may be preferred in the Sub Court. In our view it is to the District Court that appeals against orders or decrees of the Munsiff Court ordinarily lie though under the extraordinary situation envisaged by the first proviso to Section 13 appeals may be filed to the Sub Court." The above observation is in tune with Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act and the proviso thereto. 5. The apprehension expressed by learned counsel for petitioner in case two appeals are preferred in the courts of Subordinate Judge and District Judge is not without an answer : it is within the power of the District Court to remove to itself the appeal pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge or make over the appeal pending before it to the court of Subordinate Judge. I therefore hold that even when a Subordinate Judge's court is established at a place other than the place where the District Court is stationed and such Subordinate Judge's court is empowered to receive appeals from decrees/orders of the court of Munsiff within its local jurisdiction, the District court can entertain appeals from decrees or orders of such Munsiff's court. 6. Now the question is whether learned District Judge was correct in condoning the delay. 6. Now the question is whether learned District Judge was correct in condoning the delay. It would appear from the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that no argument was advanced as to the sufficiency of reason to condone the delay. But the delay involved is only ten days. The affidavit in support of the application states the circumstances under which the delay occurred. Having regard to the extent of delay involved and circumstances under which the delay was caused as stated in the affidavit of the respondent, I do not find reason to interfere with the order of learned District Judge condoning the delay. 7. But if the court of Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery is given the power to receive appeals arising from the decrees and orders of the Munsiff, Sulthan Bathery, the appropriate course though, not the only course was to file the appeal in the court of Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery. In such a situation proper course for the District Judge when this aspect was pointed out would have been to make over the C.M. Appeal to the court Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery. Hence the C.M. Appeal can be made over to the court of Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery. Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines : i. While rejecting the contention raised by petitioner as to the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Wayanad, at Kalpetta to entertain appeals from orders/decrees arising from the court of learned Munsiff, Sulthan Bathery I direct the learned District Judge to make over C.M. appeal No.10 of 2010 to the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery for disposal. ii. Learned District Judge shall while making over the appeal to the court of learned Subordinate Judge fix the date of appearance of parties in the transferee court. iii. Transferee court is directed to dispose of the C.M. Appeal as early as possible.