The judgment or decree of the appellate court replaces the judgment of the trial court, and the powers of the appellate court are co-extensive and co-terminus with those of the trial court. The appellate court is an extension of the trial court with the power to judge the correctness of the order appealed from. By its very constitution as an extended trial court, it is subject to the same limitations which circumscribe the jurisdiction of the trial court.

The District Judge, Kozhikode allowed the CM.A No. 111/90 against the order of the Munsiff, Kozhikode-II, whereby the latter had dismissed LA No. 6135/90 for injunction made by the plaintiff. The result is that while the Munsiff dismissed the application for interim 'injunction, the District Judge, in appeal, granted it. The defendants impugn the validity of the order of the learned District Judge, Kozhikode in C.M.A 111/90,

2. In suit No. 207/84 the defendants secured a decree for partition. The decree was made by the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. The plaintiff was not a party to O.S. No. 207/84 filed by the defendants. She therefore made LA. No. 916/84 for joining herself as a defendant. This application was dismissed by the Munsiff. She filed C.R.P. No. 1887/ 1985. But before C.R.P. No. 1887/85 could be disposed off, O.S. No. 207/84 was decreed.

Therefore, she filed the present suit No. 840/90 in the court of the Munsiff, Kozhikode. She seeks a decree for partition and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from executing the decree in O.S. No. 207/84. As already stated, she filed LA No. 6135/90 for interim injunction restraining the defendants from prosecuting the execution proceedings in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode to execute the decree in O.S. No. 207/84. The LA.No. 6135/90 was dismissed by the Munsiff, the C.M A No. 111/90 against which was allowed by the Dist. Judge.

3. The facts which should be noted are these: The decree in O.S. No. 207/84, which is now being executed was passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. The injunction to prevent the execution of this decree in the court of the Subordinate Judge was refused by the Munsiff in whose court O.S. No. 840/90 was filed. But the injunction was granted in appeal by the Dist. Judge. The Munsiff who is trying O.S. No. 840/90 is subordinate to the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. The execution of the decree in O.S. No. 207/84 is being prosecuted in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. This execution is sought to be prevented by the injunction prayed for in the said suit.

4. The submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that S.41(b) of the Specific Relief Act precludes a court from granting an injunction to restrain institution or prosecution of judicial proceedings in a court not subordinate to it. The District Judge, who was hearing C.M.A. No. 111/90 against the order of the Munsiff, was actually hearing a continuation of the application for injunction instituted before the Munsiff. Consequently, the grant of injunction by the District Judge, Kozhikode is a grant of injunction by the Munsiff himself, which is forbidden by law.

In answer to this, learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the order of the Munsiff refusing to grant injunction merged with the order of the District Judge whereby the injunction was granted. The order of the Munsiff does not exist. There is only one order, that is, the order of the District Judge. Since the District Judge who granted the injunction is superior to the Subordinate Judge the proceedings in whose court are sought to be prevented by the injunction, S.41(b) of the Specific Relief Act does not come into play.

5. S.41 of the Specific Relief Act lists cases in which a perpetual injunction cannot be granted. One of the injunction that cannot be granted is an injunction to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought. The jurisdiction to grant injunction is discretionary. It is well settled that the judgment or decree of the appellate court replaces the judgment of the trial court, thus constituting the judgment or decree of the appellate court the only final judgment to be executed in accordance with law by the court below. (U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955, SC 633, Kannan v. Narayani, 1980 KLT 9). The merger takes effect irrespective of whether the appellate order is one of reversal