D.K. DESHMUKH, J.

1. This Bench has been constituted by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to answer the following question of law:

“With reference to the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, whether Small Cause Court constituted under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is a Court subordinate to the Bombay High Court on its original side?”

2. The events leading to the Constitution of this Bench are as follows:

Suit No.514 of 1984 was instituted by Aderbad Co.op.Hsg. Society Ltd. claiming a decree of declaration that Defendants Nos.9 & 10 have procured membership of the Plaintiff-society by fraud and misrepresentation. A further decree of declaration was claimed by the Plaintiff-society that Defendants Nos.9 & 10 are not the members of the Plaintiff-society and/or are liable to be expelled as such. It appears that the Plaintiff-society in its General Body Meeting held on 6-2-2005 passed a Resolution resolving to revoke/cancel the nominal membership of the Defendants Nos.9 & 10. The Plaintiff/society, thereafter, approached the Deputy Registrar, Co.operative Societies for his approval to the Resolution of expulsion of Defendants Nos.9 & 10 from the membership of the society as required by the provisions of Section 35 of the Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act. In the Civil Suit filed by the society, it appears that the Defendants Nos.9 & 10 took out Notice of Motion No.828 of 2005 seeking an interim order restraining the Plaintiff/society from prosecuting and proceeding with the application made by the society before the Deputy Registrar, Co.operative Societies, under Section 35 of the Co.operative Societies Act. When that Notice of Motion came before a learned single Judge of this court for hearing, an objection was raised on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Deputy Registrar, Co.operative Societies when he exercises the jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Co.operative Societies Act is not sub-ordinate to the single Judge of the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Hence, under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1963 he has no power to grant an injunction restraining the Plaintiff from prosecuting its application before the Deputy Registrar. On behalf of the Defendants Nos.9 & 10, before the learned single Judge reliance was placed on a judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in the case of William Jacks & Co. (India) Ltd. v/s. Nilima Dinesh Prasad and others, AIR 1992 Bombay 126, to contend that the learned single Judge of this court sitting on original side exercising original civil jurisdiction has power to make an order of temporary injunction in relation to proceedings pending in the Small Causes Court constituted under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882. The learned single Judge expressed his inability to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge who decided the case of William Jacks referred to above. According to the learned single Judge, the Deputy Registrar exercising jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Co.operative Societies Act is not subordinate to a learned single Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction sitting on the original side of the High Court, and therefore, he framed following issues, which according to him were required to be considered by the Larger Bench.

i) Whether the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies hearing an application under section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 can be regarded as a court for the purpose of section 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act?

ii) Whether a Single Judge of this Court sitting on the Original Side exercising ordinary ordinary civil jurisdiction would have a power to grant an injunction restraining the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies from hearing an application under section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960?

iii) Whether injunction can be granted by a Single Judge of this Court sitting on the Original Side and exerci